Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Hurricane/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2019 [1].

Operation Hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Britain's first nuclear test, which was conducted in Western Australia in 1952. Britain became the third nuclear power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one tomrrow but could tell me which English you use for the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses Australian English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a specialist in Australian English so please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • as little as 1 to 10 kilograms (2.2 to 22.0 lb) would is kilograms an Australian English word? Also the nought at the "22.0" isn't necessary.
    Rounded. "kilogram" is correct (see p. 178 of the Commonwealth Style Guide, Sixth Edition (2002) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice Admiral Edward Evans-Lombe. It held its first meeting in May 1951. Hm the Britons use Vice-Admiral instead of Vice Admiral so do you Australians also use Vice-Admiral or just Vice Admiral?
    We don't use the hyphens (cf [2]) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The yield was estimated at 25 kilotons of TNT (100 TJ). Shouldn't kilotons be kilotonnes?
    Yes. (p. 183) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • participants of the British nuclear testing program I saw that you used two kinda "program" one is British (programme) and the other one is American (program) which one do you Australians use?
  • @Hawkeye7: May I ask you why you not addressed this one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlooked. My apologies. Both are acceptable, but standardised on "program" per the Commonwealth Style Guide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. which kinda tone do you mean? Long, short or tonne?
    When you're waving your arms around and talking about thousands, it doesn't matter. Bur I have replaced with "tonnes" for consistency.
  • This included two 25-ton bulldozers same as above which kinda tons do you mean?
    Long tons. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Marshall Islands.
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Robert A. Lovett, the Deputy Secretary of Defense "American Defense"
    Added "American". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link Hermite Island, Trimouille Island, Alpha Island and Northwest Island?
    None of them have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When queried by a Labour Party backbencher, Emrys Hughes suggest to add British between a and Labour.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[96][87] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • their wooden bottoms were easily holed by coral outcrops.[86][85] Same as above.
  • and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth.[90][72]
    All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure but shouldn't the metric be first and then Imeprial/US style of measurement. Because it took place in Australia. I mean I don't mind if you use Imperial/US style of measurement instead of metric because it is about British history.
    Sigh. WP:METRIC: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional (Here that is kt of TNT) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a grader, tip trucks, portable generators, 1,800-litre (400 imp gal) water tanks Just let you know that Americans have their own gal style just let you know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, my last comment hasn't be addresed in the last three weeks could you be kindly to adress my last commen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEASUREMENT: Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses ... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units... In this case, the source unit was imperial gallons, and the conversion is to metric, which is the primary throughout the article. Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate. So I must have imperial gallons (as the original quantity) and put litres first, but I cannot flip the order and give two conversions. Since a conversion to US gallons is purely optional, and its appropriateness is questionable, it has been omitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, went to Washington, DC, to confer "Washington, DC" --> "Washington, D.C."
    AusEng, so so full stops on acronuyms (Commonwealth Style Guide, pp. 153-154) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Air Vice Marshal E. D. Davis, arrived in Sydney on 1 November 1950 Unlink Sydney.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment the Australian government formally agreed in May 1951.[51][40] suggest ordering the refs numerically here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Switched ref order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, can you let us know your thoughts following Hawkeye's changes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Rose Sorry that this nomination took so long for getting my support. I kinda forgot this one so my apologies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, then again at Milhist ACR in 2017. I had little to nitpick about it then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Op_hurricane.jpg: per the template, please provide details of first publication. Same with File:Cleament_Attlee_and_Doc_Evatt.jpg, File:HMAS_Karangi.jpg, File:Operation_Hurricane_cloud.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Corrected the spelling. The date of publication is inconsequential; Crown copyright expires 50 years from publication, world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Formatting
  • Ref 72: the source is not described in the citation. The report should be named, together with its publisher
    Reformatted the reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 110: Not properly formatted, and retrieval date missing
    Reformatted the reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links: All links to sources are working
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 93. The Mirror is a red-top tabloid – is that the best source we can find?
    It is used only for a single quote, so it can be omitted if you feel that is appropriate. (I had to look up what red tops were.) It links to a nice archive of official documents though.[3] (They used the map I made for this article!) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to these minor points the sources appear to meet the required standards of presentation, quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Operation Hurricane was the test of the first UK atomic device". As there were more tests it should be "Operation Hurricane was the first test of the first UK atomic device"
    Changed to "Operation Hurricane was the first test of a UK atomic device." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but am I correct in thinking that an implosion device consists of a non-critical mass of plutonium surrounded by a conventional (or uranium) explosive which compresses the plutonium to bring it to criticality?
    Yes, that's right. Shaped charge explosive lenses compress or reshape the core to achieve super-criticality. The core can be surrounded by a tamper, which has the function of containing the explosion for a few microseconds, thereby increasing the yield. Lead was used in the Hurricane device, but the production model used depleted uranium, which further increased the yield through fission reactions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldermaston is linked to the article about the town. Should it not be Atomic Weapons Establishment?
    Yes. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The three leaders agreed that there would be full and effective cooperation on atomic energy" I would take atomic energy to mean civil uses, but presumably you mean nuclear?
    "Atomic" and "Nuclear" and are interchangeable in this context. The former was preferred in the 1940s and 1950s, but the scientists always preferred the latter, and it has since become more common. Both civil and military use is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think adding "civil and military" would make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such data would complement that obtained about an underwater explosion by the American Operation Crossroads nuclear test in 1946, and would therefore be of value to the Americans." Why was the value to the Americans a consideration when they were refusing cooperation? Ditto about "for fear that it might jeopardise its far more important relationship with the United States". As you have said that the Americans had refused Pacific Proving Grounds, you should say that they were still considering requests to use other sites.
    The Americans were not considering other sites; the British were. The value to the Americans was a consideration as one of the objectives of the British nuclear weapons program was the re-establishment of the Special Relationship with the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You say at the end that re-establishment of the Special Relationship was one of the aims but saying it earlier would explain the repeated references to not upsetting the Americans. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added as an extra paragraph to the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while negotiations with the United States site were ongoing" Negotiations with a site?
    Ooops. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canadian scientists and technicians would have access to all technical data, but Australians would not." Because Australia had not signed up to the Modus Vivendi? Did they complain?
    Yes, because Canada was a party to the 1948 Modus Vivendi, whereas Australia was not. Under its terms, they could not share restricted data with other nations. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the new act, everything within a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius of Flag Island was declared a prohibited area." Things a prohibited area? Also this is the only mention of Flag Island.
    Have you got a better wording? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete "everything within" and say "a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius around Flag Island was declared a prohibited area". But why Flag Island? You have not mentioned it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because it was small and central. I have marked it on the map though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The map is very helpful but it could do with a scale. Presumably HMS Plym marks where the bomb exploded? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Blue Danube design". You mention this in the summary but I think it should also be in the main text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As successful as it was, Operation Hurricane fell short on both counts." Why did it fail on independence - because the technology was too dated to be useful? This should be clarified.
    No, because the UK still had to rely on the US until the bombs and bombers were ready. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but the map needs a scale. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Hurricane/archive1&oldid=895700460"