Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trinity (nuclear test)/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) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Trinity (nuclear test)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very first nuclear test, and the most famous. I promised last year that I would do my best to get it through FAC in time for the 70th anniversary on 16 July 2015. It has been nearly ten years since its previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check consistency of wikilinking in citations
  • Compare FNs9 and 37
  • FN49 should name the speaker
  • FN52 et al: should be "Restricted Data" not "Restricted data" (and why do FN55/105 include subtitle but the others not?), and should include publication date
  • FN70 should italicize publication, and the source site has more details on the original publication (page numbers, etc) that could be included
  • FNs73, 86, 126, 127 are incomplete
  • FNs76, 103 need publisher
  • Compare FNs 26 and 85
  • Compare FNs 92 and 93
  • FN132 has a formatting error
  • Bainbridge 1975 publication shouldn't include quotation marks, italics are sufficient
  • Some books include locations, others don't
  • DC or D.C.? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called "Washington, D.C.", so we'll go with that. All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User SkoreKeep disagrees: "DC, without periods, is the (ANSI/ISO standard) designation for the district, just as MD is Maryland and NJ is New Jersey". So standadised on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "))" (multiple): MOS frowns on this.
    I'll take your word for it. I'be reverted back to the original form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Bethe stating that he was swayed with his authority over a more junior member": I'm not sure what that means.
    One of those odd ones where you have to think about, and once you follow it, are unsure why you had to think about. Rewritten thus: Bethe's choice of 8 kt was exactly the value calculated by Segrè, with Bethe stating that he was swayed by Segrè's authority over that of a more junior member of Segrè's group who had calculated 20 kt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of factors went into the choice of date and time. Most were meteorological. ... It was therefore scheduled for 16 July, the earliest date at which the bomb components would be available.": The last sentence seems to contradict the first two.
    Well spotted. Deleted the first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours.": ?
    Part of a caption left over from a deleted image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which together with diet questionnaires, will attempt to close this gap": IMO "together with diet questionnaires" raises questions that aren't answered (such as, why isn't it considered part of the study?). Could that part be omitted?
    Yes. I think it is more comprehensible as: In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which will attempt to close this gap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited part of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you once again! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few small comments:

  • The McDonald Ranch House could use a sentence or so to explain that the government seized it.
    Added. When I bring an article up to featured, I normally create a "spin off" article. In this case it is McDonald Ranch House, which is itself a GA. It has its own spin off: Niles J. Fulwyler. Like most Americans during World War II, the ranchers strongly supported the war effort until the government asked them to make a sacrifice. Then it was, "why pick on me?" The government acquired the land by condemnation (in Australia, we would say "resumption"), a process called eminent domain. The MacDonalds, for example, held 640 acres (260 ha) of patented land and grazing rights on 22,535.87 acres (9,119.94 ha) of Federal and 4,468.34 acres (1,808.27 ha) of state land. Ranchers were paid for the land they owned, and in 1942 Congress amended the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 to provide for compensation for ranchers whose permits were cancelled. The government suspended the grazing rights in the area for the duration, as the War Department was unsure as to whether the land would be required for military purposes after the war. Only in the 1970s did condemnation and cancellation replace lease and suspension at White Sands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought "amongst" was British English and "among" was American. Could be wrong about that.
    No, they have the same meaning but different usage. We use them both. I found an Oxford Dictionaries article on Abolishing angst regarding among versus amongst which says that "amongst is comparatively rare in US English but ... this spelling is by no means unknown across the water. However, many authorities (such as Garner’s Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in US English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even 'pretentious'." I have switched to "among", but it reads awkwardly to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice article. I hope to see it on the Main Page soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review! I am hoping that it can be promoted in time to run on 16 July 2015, the 70th anniversary of the event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sometimes the comments are almost as much fun as the article. Amongst, among, etc. Friends to the north (Canadians) use the -st but we Yanks think of it as pretentious. On the other hand, what do we know? I reviewed this at the last go around at A-review in Mhist and the (prose) questions I raised there have been resolved. I'm happy with it, and look forward to seeing it on the front page soon! auntieruth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Have the few issues with the images all been resolved? Graham Beards (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they have all been addressed. @Crisco 1492: Is everything okay? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read through the article and I found only a couple of issues:

  • "although its tower did not" so there was a separate tower for it asides from the one where the explosion actually took place?
  • "calculated by Segrè" mention here who is him and what is his authority
  • "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" is discussed twice within several sentences distance

Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. it was hoisted up a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the explosion
  2. Added: the head of the Los Alamos Laboratory's P-5 (Radioactivity) Group
  3. Re-worded.
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (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/Trinity_(nuclear_test)/archive1&oldid=647170316"