Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/K-25

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

K-25

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

K-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/K-25/archive1

Next in the series of articles on the Manhattan Project facilities Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support: not a lot stood out to me. I made a few minor edits and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• "File:K-25 (7609929206).jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should be the date the image was created, not uploaded;
• "File:HD.30.359. (10427116025).jpg": same as above
• "File:HD.30.360. (10427116085).jpg": as above
• "File:HD.30.375. (10427417193).jpg": as above
• "File:HD.30.374. (10427415313).jpg": as above
• "File:S50plant.jpg": needs a date

  Y Added approximate dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if potentially the article should be titled "K-25 project" - not a warstoper, just a musing. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  The name K-25 went through a kind of linguistic drift, referring at various times to the product, the project, the facility, the site and the building. The article covers them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - a few minor cmts:
  • All tool checks look fine (i.e. external links work, no dabs, no duplicate links, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [1] etc.)
  • Minor inconsistency in presentation of percentages, see "that the 1% difference in molecular weights" vs "to enrich to 90 percent" (see MOS:PERCENT). Y
  • "Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied the fluorocarbons..." Should this be "...Chemical researchers at the SAM Laboratories studied fluorocarbons..." instead? Y
  • "...recommended that the K-25 plant would be operated by Union Carbide...", perhaps more simply just: "...recommended that the K-25 plant be operated by Union Carbide..." (suggestion only) Y
  • "...Since then demolition work has been carried out by DOE's..." I'm assuming DOE is Department of Energy? This abbrev probably needs to be introduced as I couldn't see it anyway prior to this sentence. Y
  • Slightly repetitive wording here: "...Complete demolition of the K-25 facility was expected to be completed..." (complete and completed - perhaps reword?). Y

    All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support with no edits or amendments LavaBaron (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

---

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.