Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quebec Agreement/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2018 [1].

---

Quebec Agreement

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Quebec Agreement, which merged the British (Tube Alloys) and Canadian (Montreal Laboratory) nuclear weapons projects with the American one (Manhattan Project). All of which are now Featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on Commons - is there any merit to the claim made there?

  None whatsover. It was taken by the Office for Emergency Management, a US government agency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Probably shortly after the conference. As a crown copyright photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957 it is in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  The current tags in use require publication, not simply creation - is anything more known about publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  I don't know anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, are there other applicable tags given what is known about the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  We know when, where, why and how it was taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: I'm inclined to support, while I've got some questions here:

• Why "basic science and advanced engineering", but not "basic engineering and advanced science"? Any sources?

  Turning to the agreement itself, "in the field of scientific research and development there shall be full and effective interchange of information and ideas" but "In the field of design, construction and operation of large-scale plants, interchange of information and ideas shall be regulated by such ad hoc arrangements as may, in each section of the field, appear to be necessary or desirable if the project is to be brought to fruition at the earliest moment". Changed to just "science and engineering". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Kenneth Bainbridge attended ... and was surprised ... but why mention him here?

  Added "The Uranium Committee met at Harvard on 5 May, and Bainbridge presented his report." The whole point is that the British were ahead of the Americans at this point, and were sharing information that kept the American project going. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oliphant prodded the American programme into action - did he manage to do so, or he tried & failed?

  Yes. Re-worded the paragraph a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• as Frederick Lindemann was now known - who knows whom?

  The King made him a baron, so Frederick Lindemann became Lord Cherwell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ironically - is it WP:EDITORIAL?

  Don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• the British had other concerns about... Why? US is isolated - US won't use atomic bomb against UK - UK is safe. Isn't this inference more stratight-forward?

  Having fought World War II alone, Britain now contemplates the possibility of fighting World War III alone. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• What are engineer districts? Electoral district or School district or what?

  Linked to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers article, which explains that: "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is organized geographically into eight permanent divisions, one provisional division, one provisional district, and one research command reporting directly to the HQ. Within each division, there are several districts." In fact, the Manhattan District had the organisation and authority of a division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• follow suit - is it WP:IDIOM?

  Changed to "The project soon adopted the name "Manhattan" as well" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• This adversely impacted the work of the Montreal Laboratory - never mentioned Montreal Laboratory before, what's that? Why Canada?

  That's explained in the Montreal Laboratory article. Added "the joint British and Canadian project that was investigating nuclear reactor design."

• anything up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain - predicate missing? Did you mean "Anything that costs up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain requires special approval from the congress" or else?

  "was estimated to cost up to £3 million in research and development, and anything up to £50 million to build in wartime Britain." Looks okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Kellogg still wanted something - never mentioned Kellogg before, what's that? Why "still"?

  Deleted "still" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Will come back later when I finish reading sections 3-7. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 12:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: All problems are addressed and no more are found in sections 3-7. Overall it is well written, neutral and stable, though I'm not an expert on this topic and would like a second opinion on source review. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the review process seems still ongoing, I'm leaving a few more questions here.

• Uranium Committee - is that the same committee as Advisory Committee on Uranium? Never mentioned it.

  Added a bit explaining that the Advisory Committee became the Uranium Committee when it became part of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Groves briefed the S-1 Executive Committee - maybe we need a few words about its background. It was S-1 Section, but we don't know when it became S-1 Executive Committee.

  On June 19, 1942. Added a few words of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oliphant then met with Allison, Coolidge, Conant and Fermi - who is Coolidge? Fermi? and Allison somehow.

  Added a bit about Coolidge. Fermi originally appeared in the first paragraph, but was removed during the review. Linked his name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Timeline in "Early American efforts" is kind of problematic - everything was ordered by date but "Kenneth Bainbridge from Harvard University attended ... to investigate further" seems to be inserted into the wrong place. We know Bush went to NDRC in June 1940, but "Bush engaged Arthur Compton" in May 1941 - what was Bush acting as?

  Typo. Bainbridge attended the MAUD Committee meeting on 9 April 1941, not 1940. Bush chaired the NDRC from its formation in June 1940 until he became director of the OSRD in June 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll check back, while I'm happy to find this article promoted and the questions answered in the talk page. Thanks, --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 18:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• In particular, it could benefit enough from assistance from Chadwick and one or two other British scientists to warrant the risk of revealing weapon design secrets. - Why? If I understand correctly: without assistance from Chadwick, weapon design secrets would be possibly revealed. How does that happen?

  I don't see how it could be read that way. The Americans decided that the benefits outweighed the risks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Groves might tell Stimson.. - Why "our misty island", "our brilliant Prime Minister"? Isn't Groves American, and isn't it "their misty island" and "their brilliant Prime Minister"?

  "Anderson feared that Groves might tell Stimson and Bush that 'like all Americans who come to our misty island, they have been taken in by our hypocritical cunning and carried away by our brilliant Prime Minister'" Anderson is talking. It indicates the way that the British thought about their country and their relationship with the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• When Conant found out about it - about what? And I don't get the logic of the first three sentences in this paragraph.

  Re-worded to "When Conant found out about the agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Conant's objections - of what?

  "Conant's objections to Anderson's proposed arrangements for information interchange" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Citadelle note paper - In the source it is "Citadelle notepaper". And what is that? I can't find anything on Google.

  wikt:notepaper? It's just the writing paper supplied by the hotel. The point is that it must have been typed on the spot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• would be built as a joint venture - I guess JV is a term used on business entities only, but not on Manhattan Project?

  Changed to "The Quebec Agreement stipulated that the US and UK would pool their resources to develop nuclear weapons" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 16:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• Negotiations on the terms of technical interchange dragged on - are these terms part of another agreement? If they are part of Quebec Agreement, are they signed on Aug 19 or some time later?

  On 14 December. They were the implementation of the Quebec Agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Chadwick, Peierls, Oliphant and Simon arrived on 19 August, and by December 1943 they had already commenced working - what about the 4 months from Aug to Dec? What did they do?

  Returned to the UK. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• The first occasion was on 8 September 1943... - did Stimson discover that he was the chairman that morning? or did he discover the fact earlier?

  That very morning. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• There remained the issue ... Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago and the Montreal Laboratory. - the following paragraph is about Chalk River Laboratories, and there's nothing about Met lab?

  No, there is. The Met Lab was responsible for the research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• While the pace of research eased as the war entered its final phase, these scientists were still in great demand - who are "these scientists"? "these scientists" moved to another project, and Anderson, Cherwell and Appleton moved to Manhattan project, am I right?

  No. The scientists referred to are the missions to Berkeley, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• retrospective to the signing of the Quebec Agreement - could you explain more? Did it copy-and-paste most terms of Quebec Agreement besides adding Canada as signatory, or did it just mention Quebec Agreement as a courtesy?

  No, this agreement was all about patents. A retrospective agreement (also called retroactive or ex post facto because lawyers like Latin) is one that becomes effective at a specified time in the past. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... agreed to transfer to the others any rights it held in the others' countries - could you correct me if I were wrong (which is very likely): US government forced US scientists to transfer all their patent rights registered in UK to UK scientists, and so did UK/Canada governments.

  No, the US government forced all scientists to surrender patents rights to nuclear technology registered in the US to the US, UK and Canadian governments. The UK and Canadian governments did likewise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 18:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions..

• Dill died in Washington - DC or WA state?

  DC. Linked Washington. "DC" isn't used in British English. He's still there though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The British sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945 - by telegram or by postal mail? Is it really Photocopy?

  Almost certainly in a diplomatic bag, but I don't have a source for that. You couldn't send a photocopy by telegram. And yes, it was a photocopy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson - should be United States Under Secretary of War?

  Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Both "atomic energy" and "nuclear energy" / "atomic bomb" and "nuclear weapon" are used in the article. Are there any differences between "atomic" and "nuclear" terms?

  No. The scientists preferred "nuclear energy" from the start, but this was rejected in favour of "atomic energy", which was more familiar to the public. Notably in the Smyth Report. Over the years, "nuclear energy" has slowly overtaken its rival. See Google ngrams. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The reputation of the British Mission to Los Alamos was tarnished - it looks better just saying "The reputation of the British was tarnished". The source mentions Los Alamos only twice, and doesn't look like they are about reputation.

  Uh, okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 06:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources used are wide ranging, of the appropriate quality and reliability. Presentation is faultless. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Review by Carabinieri

Hi, thanks for the article. It was an interesting read. I just have a few comments:

• "In May 1939, a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in September 1939, George Paget Thomson, at Imperial College London, and Mark Oliphant, an Australian physicist at the University of Birmingham, were tasked with carrying out a series of experiments on uranium" Tasked by whom?

  Tizard. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm generally a big fan of articles giving a very short introduction when new people or organizations are mentioned. It need only consist of a few words, just enough to give the reader a rough idea of who someone is or why they are worth mentioning. I like that this article generally does that, but not for Vannevar Bush, Harry Hopkins, Arthur Compton, James B. Conant, Samuel K. Allison, Ernest O. Lawrence, Enrico Fermi, Kellogg, C. D. Howe, Klaus Fuchs, Francis Simon, Chalk River Laboratories, Argonne, X-10 Graphite Reactor, Hanford Site, Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck, Niels Bohr, William Penney, Hans von Halban, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Ronald Ian Campbell, Robert P. Patterson, Malcolm MacDonald, Roger Makins and Denis Rickett.

  Vannevar Bush: "the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington"

  Harry Hopkins: good question. Officially, he had no job. Unofficially, the most important person in the White House after the president. "a key advisor to the president"

  Arthur Compton "a Nobel laureate in physics and chairman of the Department of Physics at the University of Chicago"

  James B. Conant "the President of Harvard University"

  Samuel K. Allison "a colleague of Compton's at the University of Chicago"

  Ernest O. Lawrence "the director of the Radiation Laboratory"

  Kellogg "construction company"

  C. D. Howe, "the Canadian Minister of Munitions and Supply"

  Klaus Fuchs "fellow German refugee scientist"

  "to build a nuclear reactor at what is now known as the Chalk River Laboratories"

  "the research reactors at Argonne and the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge , but not from the production reactors at the Hanford Site"

  "a multinational team of distinguished scientists that included Sir Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck, Niels Bohr, William Penney, Frisch, and Fuchs"

  Hans von Halban "refugee French scientist"

  "French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his Collège de France team."

  "Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson"

  "Roger Makins from the British Embassy in Washington"

  Denis Rickett "Anderson's assistant"

• "It absorbed the Advisory Committee on Uranium, which was indeed one of its purposes" I didn't quite understand that sentence. What was one of its purposes?

  Taking over responsibility for the Advisory Committee on Uranium. This is because it had shifted away from being an advisory committee and was now directing research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The "Tube Alloys" section discusses British research done prior to collaboration with the Americans. I was expecting the "Early American efforts" to do the same for American research, but it mostly discusses early discussions about collaboration. Had the US already done any real research by that point? The section implies that it had (it speaks of an exchange of technical information and mentions an "American atomic bomb project"), but doesn't really discuss that research.

  Yes, as collaboration is what the article is about. Added a bit on British and US activities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "It was agreed that in 1942–1943, the United States Army would fund $53 million of an $85 million program" Program to do what?
• And isn't the British spelling of that word programme?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article sometimes uses dollars and sometimes pounds to denote the cost of various things, which makes a lot of sense in an article that is both about the US and Britain. But it did leave me wondering how those sums relate to one another.

  Officially, a pound sterling was worth US $4.03. However, since there was a war on, there was no real trade, so the true value was hard to determine. But the pound was probably actually worth much less. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Anderson extracted one important concession: the creation of a Combined Policy Committee to oversee the joint project with representation from the United States, Britain and Canada" There seems to be no real reason for the bold font to me. The same thing goes for Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire.

  Because these are redirects to this article. Unbolded outside the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "This bothered Cherwell too.[75] The American veto over post-war British commercial and industrial uses made it clear that Britain was the junior partner in the Grand Alliance." I'm not sure understand this. What exactly bothered Cherwell?'

  That Britain was becoming the junior partner in the Grand Alliance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  The way it was phrased it seemed like "This" was referring to the requirement for mutual consent. I've rephrased it somewhat.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Cherwell didn't like that either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• "This first meeting established a Technical Subcommittee chaired by Major General Wilhelm D. Styer" Maybe mention that Styer was an American?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all of my previous concerns have been taken care of. I've checked a few of the sources in three random paragraphs from the article.

• Concerning the paragraph that starts with "Oliphant took the Frisch–Peierls...": As far as I can tell, none of the information is actually from Hewlett/Anderson. The part about Oliphant taking the memo to Tizard is on pg. 41 of the Lauch book (not pg. 42-45).

  Replaced with a reference from Gowing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find the claim that the University of Liverpool worked on isotope separation.

  p. 42: "Chadwick and his collaborators Joseph Rotblat and Otto Frisch, who had transferred there from the University of Birmingham, began a comprehensive test program... among other things Frisch worked on isotope separation through thermal diffusion."

• Sorry, I must've missed that.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  No worries. I was embarrassed at the two typos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• The book doesn't say that Oxford had the world's only supply of heavy water, but only its main supply.

  Changed to "main"; Gowing (p. 49) says "the world's stock of heavy water". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• The paragraph with "Churchill took up the matter with...": pg. 204 of the Bernstein paper is about 1940-41, not 1943.

  Typo. Should be p. 214: "On May 25, the day that Cherwell and Bush negotiated, Roosevelt acceded to Churchill's pleading and, in Churchill's later words, "agreed that the exchange of information ... should be resumed and that the enterprise should be a joint one."" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• "The next meeting of the Combined Policy...": No issues found.
• Also: the Bernstein paper is on pg. 202–230, yet fn 80 cites pg. 119.

  Typo. Should be p. 219: "Stimson's Diary, August 10, 1943 indicates that the secretary was troubled by only one provision - the requirement for joint Anglo-American approval before the bomb could be used in combat." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz Hi Hawkeye, mostly gnomish as usual...

• Coolidge, who was acting in Compton's place while the latter was in South America) - remove leftover closing bracket

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• momentum the Manhattan project had assumed - Project

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• replaced the S-1 Committee on June 19, 1942 - flip date

  Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• retrospective to the signing of the Quebec Agreement in September 1943 - August?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• but it also provided for "...should continue ..." - would read better if 'provided that' instead of 'provided for'?

  Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• sent Stimson a photocopy on 18 July 1945 - but not what we know as a photocopy. What would it have been?

  It would have been an electrophotographic photocopy rather than a xerographic photocopy. Should I link to photocopier? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Nope, just me being curious JennyOz (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alsos Mission - wlink?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Groves's scientific adviser - advisor for consistency (all others, UK & US, use or)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Harvey Bundy - add his position?

  Added "Stimson's special assistant" As his article states, he is best known today as the father of William and McGeorge Bundy

• Roosevelt's estate - insert Springwood before estate?

  Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Atomic Energy Act - wlink?

  Changed to "McMahon Act" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ref Gott, Richard - author link

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Category:Canada–United States relations?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• and on 19 September 1944 signed the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire - when readers look at the image of the A-M and see the September 18 in type and the red signatures 18.9, they might be inclined to edit date in prose from 19 to 18. Is it worth adding a note to caption per the explanation given in note 2 in 2nd ext link?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• talking of 19 Sept 1944 - is date of A-M and "This arrangement was formally approved by the Combined Policy Committee meeting on 19 September 1944." just a coincidence?

  The wartime meetings of Churchill and Roosevelt provided an opportunity for everyone to get together. Unfortunately, the minutes of the meeting are not available online; Foreign Relations refers you to Gowing, which is my source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• there are a number of piped links that go via redirects. (I admit Notbroken confuses me every third time I read it) but I have seen edit summaries 'avoid dab redirect'. Should I add a list of them here or are you fine with them?

  If the piping on the left is a redirect, go ahead and list. A link like [[James L. Tuck|James Tuck]] is fine, as the left is not a redirect, and the right is not a redirect to the correct article. Normally a Bot complains if I link toi a disambiguation page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your patient explanation. These 3 are piped to redirects.

• J. J. Llewellin
• Lord Halifax
• war in Europe

Al;l done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

but what about links, that are not piped, that go via redirects? For example, should Otto Frisch, which goes via a redirect, be piped to Otto Robert Frisch, ie similar treatment to your Tuck illustration? (I definitely appreciate that what appears on the 'right' is what editor intends to be rendered.) Thanks sincerely for helping me to understand. JennyOz (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those are fine, per WP:NOTBROKEN, which explains the rationale for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

• I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, have looked at the changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.