Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smyth Report/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Smyth Report[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
  • FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
  • Can you double-check publication details for Coleman and Smith? You've given the two the same page range in the same publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Wiki-Gnomes tried to use the sfn template for web pages, which doesn't work too well. Fixed.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean here. Groves's forward is on p. v of Smyth, just like it says.
  3. Coleman had the wrong page range. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf (ed.). Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9.
simply for precision. If you'd prefer not to that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
  • In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • "British Scientific Mission to Manhattan Project": Is that the official title, without the "the"?
  • "easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
  • "had text added paragraph 12.18": not sure what's missing
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Read and tweaked prose per request by Hawk.
Sources look good. I did not do a spot check. auntieruth (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - 2 images with problems all OK (fixed Russian cover info)

  • File:Richard_Tolman_and_Henry_D._Smyth.jpg - do you have a page number for the source here? The PDF has 650+ pages and loads with like 1 page per minute. Also, author is "US Army", but PD is "United States Department of Energy". Is one of it wrong?
    • No. Property of the Manhattan Project passed to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947. It became the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1974, which was absorbed into the Department of Energy in 1977. Added the page number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a beterr version, and it is clearly labelled as a Signal Corps photograph, so switched templates anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian cover (last image) - this one has several problems:
  • Date should be date of the book (1946).
  • The author field should name the original author and possibly the editor of the translation: G. Ivanova (unless Google translate screwed something up here), the full Russian publication info from Wikisource is "Г. Д. Смит. Атомная энергия для военных целей. Официальный отчёт о разработке атомной бомбы под наблюдением правительства США. Перевод с английского под редакцией Г. Н. Иванова. Государственное транспортное железнодорожное издательство. Москва — 1946", translated as: "original title" plus "Translation from English, edited by G. Ivanova. Public transport rail publishing. Moscow - 1946".
  • The cover is not "own work" and can't be released under CC, neither by Russian Wikisource nor by us (unless the copyright owner would have released it first). A possible license could be Commons:template:PD-text for non-original texts with simple geometric shapes.
  • Optional, upload date to Russian Wikisource and original uploader should be mentioned (similar to en-Wiki -> Commons transfers).
  • Optional, but an English filename (like Smyth_Report_Russian_translation_cover.jpg) would be a lot easier to handle (and to link).
  • Other images are OK (PD) and have sufficient source and author info. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties, copyedited as usual, other points:

  • I think the first sentence would read better as "The Smyth Report is the common name of an administrative history written by physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth about the Manhattan Project, the Allies' effort to develop the atomic bomb during World War II."
  • Also in the lead, the third para follows so naturally from the second that I feel they could easily be merged into one -- just a thought though, I feel less strongly about this than about rewriting the first sentence.
  • "In the fall of 1943..." -- I don't have an issue with seasonal references in ancient or medieval histories but can we not avoid them here?
    • The problem is that this is what Smyth says in the source. Being an academic, he thought in terms of semesters. I went back to the primary document, but it says the same thing. I cannot find a more accurate timing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've tried, so fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stated purpose of the Smyth Report was to provide sufficient information to citizens to permit them to make sensible policy decisions regarding the new atomic weapons." -- the only citation following this is Smyth, after the quote from his preface that follows, so I presume this is just to summarise the quote. Perhaps it's pedantic but I'd prefer to see a secondary source cited for the purpose, otherwise why not just quote Smyth without editorialising and let the readers make up their minds?
  • Similarly, "This contrasted somewhat with what Groves wrote in the foreword" -- the only citation that follows is Groves himself after the quote so I assume it's your interpretation of Groves' words. Again, unless a secondary source highlights the discrepancy, I'd expect to just see Groves' words stand by themselves, introduced by simply "Groves wrote in the foreword:".
  • "Smyth passed security clearances necessary to visit project sites, access documents and to discuss the work with the research personnel. He also approved Smyth's request to hire another Princeton physicist, Lincoln G. Smith, as a research assistant." -- something missing here; the first sentence mentions Smyth alone, so who approved Smyth's request for Smith?
  • Aside from the above, structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • No duplicate or dab links.
  • Happy to go with Nikki's and Joe's source and image checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments have been satisfactorily addressed, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. I tend to concentrate on ease of reading... EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead para 1 has "develop the atomic bomb"; para 2 has "development of the atomic bombs". Is this consistent?
    • Changed to "atomic bombs" to match the Smyth report. Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • "atomic bomb" links to a redirect – you may as well check all wikilinks for this.
  • "Despite the technical nature of the work, it sold almost 127,000 copies". Is there any evidence for "despite"?
  • "over 40 different languages". 40 of the same languages would be impossible...
  • Background para 1. I've read this several times and still struggle to understand it. Is the first sentence a summary of the others? The first confusion is "Henry DeWolf Smyth was a physicist from Princeton University"; I read this as meaning that he'd been there in the past, perhaps studying. Use "at" instead of "from", or "employed by" / "working for"? "insisting that Smyth work part-time at Princeton"... what was he before (full? Not at Princeton?)? "Dodds had commitments to teach Army and Navy personnel"... surely it was the university, not Dodds? "Smyth therefore became a consultant at Chicago, [...] and commuted from Princeton"... I'm now completely lost: what's the chronology of everything in this para? It needs to be a lot clearer.
    • Well that would be right. Henry D. Smyth was indeed a Princeton alumnus of (AB 1918, PhD 1921). He was a professor of physics (but not the Henry D. Smyth Professor of Physics), and the chairman of the physics department. Added words to this effect. The paragraph is in struct chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk)
      • It's clearer. The only remaining point is his Princeton status prior to going pt. The implication is that he wasn't working there, but there's the apparent contradiction of his being there from 1935 to 1949. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having written dozens of biographies of academics, all I can say is that this is quite normal, especially for senior ones. They hold a paid position at a university, but take sabbaticals and work somewhere else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the President of Harvard University and among the senior administrators". Changing "among" to "one of" would make it easier to understand.
  • "thinking along similar lines". Idiomatic; just use plain English.
    • "also thinking thusly"? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "also liked the proposal"? "had similar thoughts on such a publication"? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it served as a barometer for other scientists". A barometer is a scientific instrument, so this is not the best choice of word. "yardstick" from the lead is also idiomatic.
  • "it was to be the public and official U.S. government history"; this is directly contradicted by the preface: "It is neither a documented official history".
    • Note quite, but changed the wording to "account". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This contrasted somewhat with what Groves wrote". Not so much a contrast as something entirely different.
    • I kept wanting to write "more than somewhat". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A letter to his senior managers". Smyth's or Smith's?
  • "Since Smyth still had his commitments at Princeton, he could only work on the report part-time". So he wasn't still going to Chicago?
    • No, he was still going to Chicago. Added that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The windows of Smyth's office and the one adjacent to it were barred". Was this an original feature, or added?
  • "drafts of the first twelve chapters, all but the last". Unclear / tricky to read, as "the last" could mean #12.
  • "the NDRC". What's this?
    • The National Defense Research Committee. I think a copy editor removed it. Added "National Defense Research Committee". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Manhattan Project was an Allied affair". "affair" is casual.
  • "Groves had to obtain permission from the British and American governments". For what?
  • "mission to Manhattan Project". No article?
  • "could not fathom". Idiomatic again.
    • No, it not an idiom, it is a real word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kept securely under lock and key". Idiomatic. What's wrong with "kept in a locked room"?
    • Because they weren't kept in "a room", they were in Groves's office in the Truman building. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the War Department released the thousand copies". Where did they go?
  • "He found to much easier to imagine". Makes no sense.
  • "Under the circumstances, he felt that he could not risk this". Aren't the circumstances and the risk the same thing here?
    • No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take 2: didn't the risks arise directly from the circumstances, making the inclusion of both in this sentence unnecessary? i.e. the circumstances were just the situation, not a separate set of factors in addition to the basic situation. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McGraw-Hill about publishing it. The editors at McGraw Hill". Hyphenated or not?
  • "be little profit in it". The government edition or a possible MH edition?
  • "He had but one condition". Very poetic, but not the place for it.
  • "hand corrections from Smyth on 17 August". Reiterate year, for clarity.
  • "explained to them about the Smyth Report". Clumsy.
  • "brought to the plant". What plant? Is that the usual term for where printing presses are?
  • "to the bookstores". Is an article natural?
  • "some 8,000 copies". What does "some" add?
    • NNot much. Deleted.
  • "the employee welfare organization". What employees? Reiterate that research was done there.
  • "a runaway bestseller". What does "runaway" add?
  • It's The New York Times.
  • "In all, between 1946 and 1973". So not "in all", as lots went out in 1945.
    • Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A separate question: is it just coincidental that "nearly 127,000 copies in its first eight printings" = "Between 1946 and [...] 1973, it sold 62,612 paperback and 64,129 hardback copies" (both are nearly 127,000)? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the former arises from the latter. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "62,612 paperback and 64,129 hardback copies". Which editions were hardback / paperback?
    • All of them. It was just the binding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 40 different languages". As above.
  • "was the October 1945 issue of Reviews of Modern Physics". Its website indicates that something else was included in that edition: see here.
    • Nope. The British statement was Appendix 7. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Smyth Report was translated into over 40 different languages.[30] The report was also published by the Government Printing Office, the Infantry Journal, and His Majesty's Stationery Office, and was the October 1945 issue of Reviews of Modern Physics." Shouldn't this be in the Publication section?
  • "tended to follow in the footsteps". Idiomatic.

EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eddie, I checked the first 20 or so things above, and your recommendations are generally really good ... I hope you enjoy reviewing at FAC and keep coming back ... I see from your talk page that you're also proficient at writing. Just a few points:
    • Idiomatic (in this context) usually means "peculiar to or characteristic of a given language" or "characterized by proficient use of idiomatic expressions".
      • I was going for "especially those [constructions, etc.] considered nonstandard or colloquial" and "established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from the meanings of the individual words" (OED). EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, there's the problem. OED is great for history, but there are a bunch of dictionaries (BrEng, AmEng and others) that are better at tracking actual usage. (And OED considers this a feature, not a bug ... they aim to be conservative.) For BrEng, see for instance "containing expressions that are natural and correct" and "Using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker". I think if you're going to be one of those guys (like I am!) who asks people to use words more accessible to a broad readership, then it's fair for me to ask you not to use "idiomatic" in a negative sense in reviews ... nominators are bewildered enough at FAC as it is :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The OED includes those definitions, so "idiomatic" is not the best choice, as you mention. Longman (formed from studying usage) includes my version as a definition and the BNC has examples from real use, too, but I'll abandon it. I might try "gratuitously casual", "unnecessarily metaphorical", or the dull "unencyclopedic tone" instead... EddieHugh (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can probably insist at FAC that writers avoid inapt or mixed metaphors. You seem to be asking for more than this ... could you clarify where you draw the line? For instance, is it okay to write "draw the line"? What's wrong with "could not fathom"?
      • It's hazy. My starting point is the reader's perspective and I don't assume that that person's English is excellent. I'm fond of "fathom", but it is old-fashioned. One question on where to draw the line (on drawing the line and others) is: Why use a word / phrase that many readers will not understand, when there are readily understandable alternatives? EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your second bullet point, see MOS:REDIR: "The advantage of redirects over piped links is that they allow us to determine which pages link to the given topic using Special:WhatLinksHere". - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; I think I was told to do it by one GA reviewer. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a few mini reviews here. I get put off a bit because articles appear to be passed once some basic checks and proof reading have been done, or because nominators expect reviewers to drag an inadequate article up to a reasonable standard. I might specialize on one aspect, as others do; perhaps on ease of reading, although I don't relish the confrontational facets that surface when (in my view) an article is fundamentally flawed and nominators want a list of faults (in the proof reading style) to correct. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway – my responses are indented and signed above. EddieHugh (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding nominators expecting you to do the work ... some wikiprojects and individuals get it and some don't, you'll find over time who you're most happy working with. As frustrating as FAC can be sometimes ... if you like looking at prose, then reviewing at FAC can be a very satisfying experience. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Maralia

  • I fixed a couple of very minor typos.
  • Can you clarify what flavor of English is intended? I see both 'organisation' and 'organization', and 'World War II' and 'endeavor' but dmy dates. I'm not fussed about the Engvar per se; mostly just confused.
    It should be in US English. I've switched the dates to mdy because that was the form used in the Smyth Report (and, after some checking, was the article's original form back in 2004). It sticks out a bit, because the Manhattan Project normally used US military format (dmy). Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a single PhD student's dissertation really the only significant modern analysis that links the Smyth Report's narrow focus to the public perception that the Manhattan Project was mostly about physics? That seems a bit lightweight as the sole evidence for a conclusion stated in the lead of the article. Surely there is more out there on this?
    It all tracks back to this thesis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm glad you've gone to the source—but can we also offer some sign of academic consensus on the point? Maralia (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I've added some words from Professor Robert P. Crease from Stony Brook University and Professor Jon Agar, professor of of Science and Technology Studies at University College London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted that you've cited a blog, and wanted to comment that I'm satisfied that it meets WP:RS as it's written by a well qualified scientist who is meticulous in citing his sources.
    Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tidy little article and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Crease and Agar additions, which satisfied my only remaining query. Well done! Maralia (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2014 (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/Smyth_Report/archive1&oldid=640157884"