Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MAUD Committee/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [1].
MAUD Committee[edit]
This article is about the MAUD Committee, which performed a feasibility study of the claims in the Frisch-Peierls memorandum that an atomic bomb was practical. It led to the establishment of the British, American and Russian development projects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
All of the sources appear to be of high quality and reliable. I searched for other academic papers regarding the committee, and didn't find anything other than a 1993 article by Gowing in the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.1993.0007, but it looks from the abstract to be mainly about Chadwick rather than the committee per se. As I raised at Milhist ACR, the 2011 book The First War of Physics: The Secret History of the Atom Bomb, 1939-1949 by Jim Baggott seems to have a bit about the committee. Have you looked at it? Spotchecks not conducted due to nominators long history at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have Gowing's paper. Although I have a large library of works on the British bomb project, I don't have Baggott, and it isn't in the libraries here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Worldcat seems to think ACT Library and Information Service has it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Image review—pass
All images are free and correctly licensed, no issues. buidhe 01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR in 2018, and going through it again, couldn't find much to quibble about. A few comments:
- "These reports discussed the feasibility and necessity of an atomic bomb for the war effort" and also the use of uranium to generate heat energy presumably?
- should Fritz Kalckar be redlinked?
- I don't think so. He died at age 27 in 1938, so this is his only notable work. Had he lived he might have become like Bohr's other protégés. His brother Herman has an article though.
- "while th
ate latter" - comma after Minister for Coordination of Defence
- link Imperial College London
- Otto Frisch→Frisch
- introduce Cockroft properly at first mention, and John Cockroft→Cockroft and drop the later link
- link Royal Society
- say that Frederick Lindemann was primary scientific adviser to Churchill
- link Internment
- suggest "in the American journal Physical Review"
- say that Lord Melchett was deputy chair of ICI
- "
Hans vonHalban andLewKowarski" - link nuclear reactor at first mention in the body
- link Manhattan Project
- suggest "by atomic spies for the Soviet Union, including Fuchs."
- link Lyman James Briggs
- say who Ernest Lawrence was, ie Nobel physicist
- Harold Urey in full and link
- Yes, he got one too.
- same with George B. Pegram
- say who Lavrenty Beria was
That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from AustralianRupert[edit]
G'day, Hawkeye, nice work as always. I have a suggestions/comments below: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Regardless of how crazy it seemed" --> "crazy" seems a little informal, is there potentially another way to say this?
- "from each University laboratory" --> " from each university laboratory" (lower case "u")?
- "it was not considered worthwhile to immediately" --> "it was not considered necessary to immediately"?
- "Frisch-Peierls Memorandum" (header) --> endash instead of hyphen? Also should it be a lower case "memorandum"? In the text you use lower case
- "response to the Peierls-Frisch memorandum" or "Frisch-Peierls"? (name order)
- "funded out of the universities' own pockets" (seems a bit informal)
- "which also began to pay some university staff's salaries" --> "which also began to pay some salaries for university staff"?
- "he was only able to get involved because of Peierls, who pointed out" --> "he was only able to get involved after Peierls vouched for him, pointing out that..."
- not sure if this is completely necessary: "This is based on Graham's law, which states that the rate of effusion of a gas through a porous barrier is inversely proportional to the square root of the gas's molecular mass. In a container with a porous barrier containing a mixture of two gases, the lighter molecules will pass out of the container more rapidly than the heavier molecules. The gas leaving the container is slightly enriched in the lighter molecules, while the residual gas is slightly depleted". Perhaps, "Basing their work around Graham's law, Simon's team..."
- I'm not sure how well-known Graham's Law is; it wasn't on the physics syllabus when I was in high school, but likely was back then. I picked up a pen and paper to convince myself. (It's easy to derive.) However,m if I had been asked to separate two isotopes, it wouldn't have been my first guess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Nor mine, but despite being an engineer, I actually only know how to break things. Perils of a corps-allocation system that doesn't take into account one's undergraduate degree... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how well-known Graham's Law is; it wasn't on the physics syllabus when I was in high school, but likely was back then. I picked up a pen and paper to convince myself. (It's easy to derive.) However,m if I had been asked to separate two isotopes, it wouldn't have been my first guess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- "kilogram per day of uranium enriched to 99 per cent uranium-235" --> "kilogram per day of uranium-235 enriched to 99 per cent"?
- That would be incorrect. The enriched uranium would be 99% uranium-235 and 1% uranium. In practice, the plant would not have been capable of enriching it this much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ack, no worries, my concern was to try to reduce repetition of the word "uranium" but this doesn't seem possible given what you say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- That would be incorrect. The enriched uranium would be 99% uranium-235 and 1% uranium. In practice, the plant would not have been capable of enriching it this much. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- suggest maybe adding a very short sentence to both the US and Soviet sections detailing when they successfully produced an atomic bomb? This information is in the linked main articles, so would only need to be very short.
- the following terms appear to be overlinked: Klaus Clusius; Physical Review and Manhattan Project
- All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Coord note[edit]
Hi Hawkeye, I'd want to see commentary from someone outside the MilHist fraternity, perhaps see if you can scare one up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Graham Beards[edit]
This is an excellent article. I have a copy of Clark's "The Birth of the Bomb" and I was familiar with this history during my time at The University of Birmingham during the 1970s. (I walked past the Poynting Building most days). There's a couple of videos on You Tube and this website [2] which complement the article, but this is the most comprehensive account that I have read. Graham Beards (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.