Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/High Explosive Research

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

High Explosive Research[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/High Explosive Research/archive1

The third in the articles about the British nuclear weapons programmes, after Tube Alloys and British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support High Explosive Research having just, last week, passed GA review I can't really find that much to provide in feedback, other than to note this is an exceptionally well-written, well-sourced, and interesting article. A few non-critical comments:

Adding ALT-tags to the images, which currently lack them, might be desirable.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the second sentence under Testing "fall back" (verb) is used instead of "fallback" (noun).
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "British Mission" should, in fact, be "British mission"?
Done depitalised when it is not the actual title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are some disambiguation page links [1] that may need to be DABed.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and image review I closely reviewed this article at GAN earlier this month, and believe that it meets the A-Class criteria. I obviously checked the images at GAN, and believe the licensing is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support:

He was an independent Member of Parliament Attlee or Anderson? (I know, but it could be read either way)
Y Changed to "Anderson". There are a couple of things here that I thought non-British people may find odd: that a member of the opposition has a desk in the Cabinet Office; and the notion of a university constituency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this role he had his own office as an opposition front-bencher or his role on the committee?
Y Changed to As chairman of the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy, Anderson had his own office in the Cabinet Office, and the services of its secretariat.
Lord Portal Do you think it worth including his rank and/or first name on first mention?
Y Added his rank. I don't think lords use their first names any more. Should we use Charles Portal, 1st Viscount Portal of Hungerford?
- Debrett's would say they don't (but then Debrett's would have us refer to Sir Joseph Bloggs as "Sir Joseph", whereas our MoS would insist on "Bloggs") so I guess the full title is the only option. I'll leave it up to you whether you think it's including. If he was well known by his name, I'd lean towards including it, but if he was better known as Lord Portal I'd keep it as you have it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Portal reluctantly accepted the post for a two-year term If it's not too far off-topic, why was he reluctant?
Y Added as he felt that he lacked administrative experience outside the Royal Air Force Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the term Dorothy Dixer, and our article says it's an Aussie term.
Y I had no idea that you don't have them in the UK. Changed to "pre-arranged question" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the nickel powder used "Fortunately" could be construed as editorialising.
Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
125 kg of highly enriched uranium per annum Is there an easy way to put that into context? How many bombs would it make, for example?
Y British designs in the late 1950s used large amounts of highly enriched uranium: 87 kg for Green Bamboo, 117 kg for Orange Herald. But a composite Blue Danube core could use 3.25 kg of Pu and 6.5 kg of HEU. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, so it was only producing enough HER for about one bomb a year? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calculations of the nuclear physics were performed by Fuchs at Harwell Can we use the active voice instead?
Y Changed to Fuchs performed calculations of the nuclear physics involved at Harwell in 1948. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they sailed around the Cape of Good Hope instead of traversing the Suez Canal. Was there a reason to take the scenic route? Middle-eastern politics perhaps?
Y The Egyptian revolution of 1952. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to say about Britain wanting to preserve its status specifically because it was gradually losing its empire (in no small part due to American pressure)?
Y I've added a couple more paragraphs from Gowing & Arnold and Baylis & Stoddart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of replies inline but I've reviewed the responses and I'm happy to support. I would have been anyway but I like to keep you on your toes since you leave me so little to criticise! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.