Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Hanford Site[edit]

Notified: Northwesterner1, WP Milhist, WP History of Science, WP Washington, WP Environment, WP NRH, WP Oregon, WP Science Policy, talk page notice 2022-07-01

This is a 2008 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; it's main writer has not edited since 2009. Other than DrKay, there are no recent active editors maintaining it. As mentioned on talk on 2022-07-01, the lead is too long, the article is dated, and recent scholarly sources have not been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to take on the task of maintaining the article as it is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. However, I am on vacation at present and will not have access to my books for another week. List the issues that we have with the article and I will make the required changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The three main things are listed on talk:
  1. The lead is too long and needs a rewrite.
  2. There is very dated material and a new report out that hasn't even been consulted (basically, the main editor hasn't touched the article, so a top-to-bottom update is needed)
  3. A google scholar search is linked on talk, and recent scholarly articles need to be checked to see if further updates are needed.
No problem waiting ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Please feel free to ping me when you get to it. I would like to pitch in as well, I won't be able to work on it at all until Thursday, sounds like maybe we are on a similar schedule. Important article, I worked on it a bit during the FA push, and I readily concede that I haven't paid much attention to it for years. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and Peteforsyth: since the original writer wasn't following, I've gone through the talk page to archive the old, but there are several threads I've left on talk that need to be reviewed as to whether there is merit or those items were addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, Hawkeye7 is at work on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would anyone object if I altered the reference format to match the rest of the Manhattan Project articles ie put the books down the bottom and use {{sfn}}? I find the ref/rp format (not used consistently) creates very long citations that look like .[3]: 70–74 [4][5]: 2.4–2.6. The use of sfn also means that the software will verify that all the book references have page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go along with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products. Do we know what chemistry they used in those days? PUREX? It would be an interesting thing for the article to contain. John (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three different processes were developed: the bismuth-phosphate process was used during the war; the REDOX process was developed during the war and deployed in 1947; and the PUREX process, which was used from 1952 to 1992. I have added this on my list of things to add to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I posted at Talk:Hanford_Site#National_Historic_Landmark_sourcing,_NRHP_docs my suggestion to cite the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination document, rather than just the "NHL summary" webpage (which has been taken offline anyhow, though there's a copy at Wayback machine). Content in the 48-page document should be used, I would think. It was written and edited by respectable persons, with credits to 2 writers and 2 editors on page 48. --Doncram (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have decided to split the article. I am creating a new subarticle (Hanford Engineer Works) that will contain the wartime period. This will match and have the same structure as Clinton Engineer Works. This article in turn will gain additional material about the Cold War period. The sources bemoan that Hanford has not received the same coverage as Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. On Wikipedia the fault is mine; because this article was already featured, it never appeared on my work list. But I did gather material on it, and am working on it now. This may take a bit of time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7 progress update ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new subarticle is progressing nicely, and should be complete in the next few days. I will return to this one, cut back the World War II section that I started to expand, and carry on with the post-war period, for which I have assembled the source material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new article (Hanford Engineer Works) has been moved to the mainspace and submitted to DYK for review. I have now returned to this article. The World War II section will be rebuilt, references added and some factual errors corrected. The Cold War expansion will be expanded. The final section looks okay; it just needs some updating. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Further note on progress Finished World War II and Cold War should be done in a day or two. Down to Decommissioning. The rest of the article should proceed more rapidly. The main effort in the final sections will be bringing them up to date. I have added some new images, including a nice colour map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished Back to reviewers again. The major changes are:
    1. Manhattan Project section forked off into its own article
    2. Cold War section added, with deatils of separation processes
    3. Later operartions section rewritten
    4. Decommissioning section rewritten
    5. New images added, including a more colourful map
    6. New sources added
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird thing with a caption: "Large bulldozers remove buried pieces of pipe filled with contaminated waste", which the source also phrases similarly. But the equipment pictured is fairly clearly backhoe loaders, not bulldozers. Hog Farm Talk 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this do the trick? (Clearly not a bulldozer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's a satisfactory solution. I'll try to revisit this article more in-depth after Thanksgiving week. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this review now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally back home; let me try to get a chance to read through this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same ... I have not read through and will have time in about one week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to update the data in the climate table? It no longer matches the record high noted immediately afterward ...
    I've updated the records to 2021 from a new source [2] Unfortunately, the source gives 118 as the temperature on 29 June 2021. As it seems that the record was officially updated in December, I have adjusted that entry in the table accordingly. All the other figures are from the source. Note that the new averages are for 1991-2020. This is normal these days, due to global warming. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the PUREX plant in 1997, " - is this distinct from the PUREX facility closed in 1972? It isn't particularly clear
    Yes. I have added a bit to make it more explicit: "The PUREX plant reopened in 1983 to reprocess N Reactor reactor-grade fuel into weapon-grade fuel. This ended in December 1988, and it returned to standby status in October 1990... the PUREX plant closed for good in 1997" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but electricity tariffs had to be increased to repay the bond holders" - tariff generally indicates an import/export situation. Are we sure that's the best wording here?
    Electricity charges are called tariffs. Linked to electricity tariff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Less so in the United States (although I am from a different region than Hanford), but that's better. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concentrations of radionuclides including tritium, technetium‑99, and iodine‑129 in riverbank springs near the Hanford townsite have generally been increasing since 1994. This is an area where a major groundwater plume from the 200 East Area intercepts the river ... Detected radionuclides include strontium‑90, technetium‑99, iodine‑129, uranium‑234, -235, and -238, and tritium. Other detected contaminants include arsenic, chromium, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate - this is a direct quote from the (public domain) source. It's not a copyvio, but needs to be more clearly indicated as such
    Reformatted as a quotation, with page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing many issues besides these above, I anticipate supporting this being kept once the above are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a close without FARC here. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to be able to get through this week, but at a quick glance, I don't understand the placement of Climate so predominantly (early in the article) ... is it necessary for understanding the rest of the article, or can it be moved down ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it; it is where it has always been. It seems to be in a logical place. The article starts with geography, the climate follows, and then the history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading, but I cannot (yet) find where the article explicitly states (from the lead) that "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River" ... would it be better as "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices resulted in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that the objective of the safety procedures was to contaminate the air and water, when the opposite was the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • "Treaties were signed, but were often ignored, as the reservation system was not compatible with their traditional food-gathering or family groupings" ... their refers back to treaties ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need this decimal precision? "In all 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of our mission to provide a compendium of knowledge. My source has precise figures, and accuracy allows the Wikipedia to be easily paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE: at almost 11,000 words of readable prose, I'm watching for places to trim.

  • This passage seems wordier than necessary (a lot of space to say work was delayed to save crops in the field): "Most of the land (some 88 percent) was sagebrush, where eighteen to twenty thousand sheep grazed. About eleven percent was farmland, although not all was under cultivation. Farmers felt that they should be compensated for the value of the crops they had planted as well as for the land itself.[38] Because construction plans had not yet been drawn up, and work on the site could not immediately commence, Groves decided to postpone the taking of the physical possession of properties under cultivation to allow farmers to harvest the crops they had already planted. This reduced the hardship on the farmers, and avoided the wasting of food at a time when the nation was facing food shortages and the federal government was urging citizens to plant victory gardens.[39][40] The War Department arranged with Federal Prison Industries for crops to be harvested by prisoners from the McNeil Island Penitentiary.[41][42]"
  • Do we need this level of detail? "Barracks construction commenced on April 6, 1943, and" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I always use specific dates when available. They help readers who are searching for specific information, and those who want to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be trimmed ? "DuPont put the contract for building the village of Richland out to tender, and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. " TO ... DuPont awarded the contract for building the village of Richland to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is that DuPont let the contract, whereas at Oak Ridge (and elsewhere) the Army would have. This is an important difference between Hanford and the other sites. The reader could guess, but better to be explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair bit of editing myself, but am not entirely comfortable doing so; it does seem that the prose could be tightened throughout. It might be good to have a new set of eyes run through and have a look for areas where prose might be trimmed and tightened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that they are most likely to be found in the final three sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a ce of the article. Some comments below:

  • The "Growth of Richmond" section is quite large, and I'm struggling to understand the connection between the demographics and incorporation of the city with the site. Perhaps this information would be better if it was in the city's article, and the information more effectively summarised?
    The Richland township was part of the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest splitting up the larger sections to make easier reading, especially in the "Plutonium production", "Expansion" and "Cleanup under Superfund". I usually recommend 3-4 paragraphs per section.
    The MOS notes that there is no consensus about this. Split them up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other thoughts below:

  • "Wahluke Slope" section starts with "Immediately outside the Hanford Site lay an area known as the Wahluke Slope." This makes me think that this section does not concern the Hanford Site and maybe can be removed. This would be like if the article on Toronto had a section describing Mississauga: the latter city is not within the borders of the former so I would be confused as to why it is there.
    As the article notes, it is flanked by the site. The bounds of the site are somewhat elastic, and there were issues about how safe the surrounding area was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192 and uranium-233 were also produced.[139][158][159][160][161]" Are all five citations necessary here, or can some be removed? If not, should it be WP:CITEBUNDLE?
    The first one covers the first four isotopes, so moved in. The last four remain, per WP:CITEBUNDLE; they are all about uranium-233 production. For some reason this was secret and very controversial. Uranium-233 is nasty stuff; ignore the people on the internet touting it.
  • "It was shut down in 2008.[196][199][200][201]" Are all of these citations necessary here? Can they be spread throughout the paragraph, or citebundled?
    I really weaved these together tightly. Split up a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016 it was announced that gravitational waves had been detected.[206][207][208][209]" Another possible removal or citebundle of the refs.
  • "It began producing power in May 1984.[199][211][212][213][214]" Another one.
    Split citation again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage that the sources listed in "Further reading" be used as sources for inline citations, or removed if they are not high-quality or do not add contributions to the article.
  • All three are high quality works
    1. Findlay and Bruce (2011) is an updated version of their 1995 book, which is extensively used in the article. It would be easy enough to replace one of the 1995 citations with a 2011 one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I haven't read Olsen (2020) but it has good reviews. It is also very recent, and so may be easier for the reder to obtain a copy. Another editor used it in the article but without page numbers so I moved it to the Further Reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Pope is all about the Washington Public Power Supply System. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and SandyGeorgia: What concerns remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comments above were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
responding to ping, while looking in to how to trim, I see there is a citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FFTF has its own article, so that para can be trimmed, but I can't sort this sentence, so aborted trim:
  • Nonetheless, the FFTF continued to operate until generating plutonium‑238 for nuclear power sources for NASA space missions and tritium for nuclear fusion research. Missing word ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another source of contaminated food is the first mention of contaminated food in this section:
  • Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[219] Radiation was later measured 200 miles (320 km) downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. it was estimated that a person who had daily eaten 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) of fish caught at Richland would have received an additional radiation dose of 1,300 millirems per year.[220] Screens and fish ladders were used to protect wildlife.[citation needed] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah ha, we get cows in the next para ... These radionuclides entered the food chain via dairy cows grazing on contaminated fields ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The light dusting of strontium-90 isn't much of a health hazard for living there, as the radiation is negligible compared to the natural background. However, it turns out that if you graze dairy cattle on the grass, the concentration will be a hundredfold in the milk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities to trim content remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Have Sandy's concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am caught up elsewhere at FAR now, and should be able to take this on tomorrow and the next day (to answer Nikkimaria, there have been improvements, but now I need to just plug on for a full read-through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reminding myself that there are two Keep/Close without FARCs recorded above (it's been so long I had forgotten where we stood :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

  1. I made some small copyedits to the top part of the article only, but since copyediting is not my strength, I am still uncomfortable that after all this time, others have not had a look. I stopped halfway through Production process.
    There was one error; you stated that the site is not open to tourists. It is! (see the last paragraph of the article) Book your tour here! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I continue to feel like there is more physics here than needed, because individual parts have their own articles. As examples, we have N Reactor and we have B reactor; how much of the physics do we need to cover here, and is necessary to go into detail when different parts have their own articles?
    My reaction here is "what physics?" Look at Tamper (nuclear weapon)#Physics for an example of what it looks like when I put physics into an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to impose upon ComplexRational, who is very good at copyediting, and also for an opinion on the physics parts of the article that I haven't yet delved in to. I am concerned that FAR shouldn't be just patching up dated articles and pushing them through; Hawkeye7 has rewritten this article, and deserves the same prose scrutiny expected at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think FAR can handle that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb's reliability script is calling this source a no-no:

  • "Washington Gov. Inslee's office: 6 more tanks at Hanford site are leaking radioactive waste". Breaking News. Retrieved February 22, 2013. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with a CNN reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just about there, but I'll feel more comfortable when a topic expert (ComplexRational) has looked it over ... sorry for the errors ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the ping. I can look it over, though I'm somewhat busy IRL at the moment and won't be able to do more than basic copyediting until Friday at the earliest. Complex/Rational 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ComplexRational sorry to pester :) Are you still able to look this one over this weekend? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I have a lot going on, so unfortunately I don't think I'm able at the moment. Complex/Rational 16:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. I had really hoped someone else would help out here, but since that hasn't proven possible, it's well past time to close this up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, that's three (Hog Farm and Z1720 earlier). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made a suggestion about referencing early on in this review, perhaps too early for it to be useful. The suggestion was partly to drop use of a bad URL, which is still used in the article, and also to use a 48 page source on NRHP listing and National Historic Landmark designation. That is given as an inline reference at article's Talk page. It's okay for the suggestion not to be taken in part or full (but why not fix the bad URL, if not use the replacement?), but I am just noting it was not. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I have made the change you suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 3 March 2023 (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_review/Hanford_Site/archive1&oldid=1142911384"