Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mosaic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Mosaic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Next in the British nuclear tests series after Operation Totem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources look reliable, but there are some consistency issues. Some journals and PDFs are listed under references, while others are cited as footnotes without giving page numbers (which harms WP:V). Some books have both ISBN and OCLC, while others have just ISBN (I recommend dropping OCLC as it is duplicative, but either way, be consistent.) You also have overcited the statement, "Menzies cabled his approval of the tests on 20 June 1955". Suggest breaking up those refs by moving closer to the content they support or dropping the weakest/ least reliable one. buidhe 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • All journals are listed in the references.
    • Then what is "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. No. 232. October 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Looks like a journal to me.
      It's a fortnightly bulletin put out by the Airpower Development Centre. It's not a journal, but the bulletins are collected into one, so cited that instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Australia Station Intelligence Summary" (PDF). Royal Australian Navy. June 1956. Retrieved 7 August 2018. May be a report, but there still needs to be page number to comply with WP:V.
      It is a report, so added the page number. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the book and journal citations have page numbers.
  • All the books in the reference with an ISBN have an OCLC, but one older book has no ISBN. The two do not duplicate each other.
  • I've split the reference on Menzies' acceptance.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN 18 months ago and not much has changed, so I only have a few comments:

That's all I could find. Nice work as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985 there emerged a claim that the second test was of a significantly higher yield than suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) as compared to 60 kilotonnes of TNT (250 TJ); but this claim remains unsubstantiated.
    Consider replacing the second “in” that follows Australia with "during" - it's defined as throughout the course or duration of a period of time.
    "At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985" - this has the characteristics of an introductory phrase or clause, but without punctuation. A comma after 1985 would help breakup an otherwise 35-word stretch before a punctuated pause.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two tests would provide important information that would materially advance progress towards building a British hydrogen bomb.[11][12]
    Consider replacing the second would with could. Could indicates the possibility of something.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There area was too isolated, with the nearest road over 100 miles (160 km) away, and only tracked vehicles or those with special tyres could traverse the intervening sand dunes.
    Tyres?
    Special tyres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations:

  • ... four RAF Hastings aircraft flew between the UK and Australia, and two Whirlwind helicopters provided a taxi service
    taxi service seems specific, wouldn’t it be "the” rather than a?
    Better as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G1:

  • The fissile material was delivered by a RAF Hastings to Onslow, from whence it was collected by HMS Alert on 11 May and delivered to the Monte Bello Islands the following day.
    This sentence seems to have three independent clauses, in which case the comma after Onslow should be replaced with a semicolon and a comma added after 11 May.
    checkY Comma added after "11 May". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following day, Martell set 16 May as the day for the test.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second day should be replaced with date - a date is a particular day.
  • The main danger to the ships' crews was considered to be from radioactive seaweed, so the crews were prohibited from catching or eating fish, and ships' evaporators were not run.
  • Add the definite article before the last mention of ships’.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G2:

Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Down to G1. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @CPA-5: Anything more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is more, give me a sec.

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.