Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tube Alloys

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) 05:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tube Alloys[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Tube Alloys/archive1

The British wartime nuclear weapons project Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As with High Explosive Research, Tube Alloys has just been GA promoted so it is difficult to find much in the way of suggestive comments that don't amount to nit-picking. But, to nit-pick:

Alt-tags might be desirable for the images.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under Post-War I think "The Special Relationship" could be "the Special Relationship".
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also under Post-War, this sentence seems to contain an incomplete paranthetical expression: "In April 1950 an abandoned Second World War airfield, RAF Aldermaston in Berkshire was selected as the permanent home for what became the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE)". I think there may need to be a common after "Berkshire".
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping with the Special Relationship, this term is wikilinked three times in the article, while MOS:DUPLINK would suggest it should only appear once after the lede. (IOW, it might be appropriate to cull the final wikilink to the Special Relationship.)
The duplicate link checker doesn't find anything. "Special Realtionship" is linked only in the lead and the Post-War paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These things aside, this is a great article! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Suport, ~~mostly nitpicks~~. This another excellent article:

While it recommended that while a pilot separation plant be built in Britain, the production facility should be built in Canada. Is the second "while" a typo?
Y Just me fumbing for the right wording. Deleted the first "while". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly there was no majority agreement upon to move forward with it
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
agreement that “ordinary” gaseous diffusion straight quotes per the MoS
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per diem of uranium-235 why use the Latin if it's not necessary?
English grammar. "Per" being Latin should be followed by the Latin word, if there is one. eg per cent, per diem, per annum. If there isn't, then there is no proposition eg per kilometre, per battalion Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In very formal writing, perhaps, but "per day" is more common and perhaps more accessible. Still, it's up to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
would cost about £5,000,000 To build? To run (per day/month/year)?
Y To build. He estimated that it would cost £1,500,000 per year to run, in which time it would consume £2,000,000 of uranium and other raw materials. Added. The estimate was way out by the way; the Capenhurst plant cost £14,000,000 to build. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was only a minor setback due to the fact that Maybe I'm just a snob but I really hate the construction "due to the fact that", perhaps due to the fact that (winces!) it uses four words where one will do.
Y Oh very well then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very early experiments were carried out by Is there an easy way to re-phrase that in the active voice?
Y I can try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plutonium bomb would lead to proposed premature detonations proposed premature detonations?
Y Stray word. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he wanted to make sure that the relationship between the United States and Great Britain the links to the countries seem unnecessary but regardless the GB article is about the island rather than the country
Y Removed. I am constantly getting rid of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why the name "Tube Alloys"? Does it mean something? Was it chosen for a reason? Or would any suitably obscure title do?
The article says: Anderson and Akers came up with the name Tube Alloys. It was deliberately chosen to be meaningless, "with a specious air of probability about it" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Comfortably meets the A-class criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Leaning heavily towards support at the moment.

The MAID committee.

"MAUD is assumed by many to be an acronym" is a bit clunky (and raises the question of who makes the assumption). A slight re-phrasing would work well.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Regardless of how crazy it seemed" is not encyclopaedic phrasing and should be re-drafted.
Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopic separation

I have no idea what "a chemist shielded in Britain" means
Y Me neither. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec agreement

Is there a reason "any post-war advantages of an industrial or commercial nature" is in italics?
Y Quotation. Replaced italics with quotation marks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of the Quebec agreement: more to follow soon. – The Bounder (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Only a few more British English tweaks in the last section, so happy to support now. Nice article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:William Penney, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and John Cockroft.jpg - image is not on the provided link.
Added an archive link, although I'm not sure that Commons position is on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley 1947.jpg - I'm relying on google translate, but I don't see anything on the source page that supports the license tag.
[1] says that the images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 or PD. It's PD, except in countries like the US where copyright does not expire, it which case it is CC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Niels Bohr 1935.jpg - source link is dead. Also, I'm not sold on the anonymous license tag - us not knowing who took the photo now is not the same as it having been published anonymously, which is what the law requires.
It says "its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous", which is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sir Mark Oliphant.jpg - dead link.
Switched to its current location. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Groves and Chadwick 830308.jpg - image is not on the provided link. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added an archive link, although I'm not sure that Commons position is on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- An external link check shows three websites may be out of order, please advise.
  301 and 302 are rarely serious. One was wrong; set to the archive. Removed the URL from the journal so it avoids the 302, but it still goes to the same location. The BBC site is okay; it does a pass off of incoming requests for load-sharing purposes. Left as it is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The image in the post war section has a caption leading off with a colon, is there some reason for that? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:07, 12 April 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.