Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mosaic
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Operation Mosaic[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Operation Mosaic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Next in the British nuclear tests series after Operation Totem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Source review
Sources look reliable, but there are some consistency issues. Some journals and PDFs are listed under references, while others are cited as footnotes without giving page numbers (which harms WP:V). Some books have both ISBN and OCLC, while others have just ISBN (I recommend dropping OCLC as it is duplicative, but either way, be consistent.) You also have overcited the statement, "Menzies cabled his approval of the tests on 20 June 1955". Suggest breaking up those refs by moving closer to the content they support or dropping the weakest/ least reliable one. buidhe 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- All journals are listed in the references.
- Then what is "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. No. 232. October 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2018. Looks like a journal to me.
- "Australia Station Intelligence Summary" (PDF). Royal Australian Navy. June 1956. Retrieved 7 August 2018. May be a report, but there still needs to be page number to comply with WP:V.
- All the book and journal citations have page numbers.
- All the books in the reference with an ISBN have an OCLC, but one older book has no ISBN. The two do not duplicate each other.
- I've split the reference on Menzies' acceptance.
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
I reviewed this at GAN 18 months ago and not much has changed, so I only have a few comments:
- suggest "After the war ended, the British government expected"
- "The resulting nuclear fusion reactions produce
dneutrons" - move the link to Royal Navy to first mention
- suggest "RAAF Base Pearce near Perth, and Onslow in the Pilbara region"
- suggest "RAAF Base Darwin"
- There is tension between "Two tests were therefore added to the schedule: one with a lead tamper to investigate the effect of lithium deuteride, and one with a natural uranium tamper to investigate its effect." in the Purpose and site selection section, and "Given the result of G1, plans were changed for G2. It had been intended to use a lead tamper for G2, but given the low yield of G1, a natural uranium tamper was substituted"
- Onlow→Onslow
- the AWTSC set a limit of 80 kT? But earlier it says "so the promised upper limit was about 60 kilotonnes of TNT"
There isn't really a contradiction here, but added that one of 80 kt was subsequently agreed to. There was a constant tension between the politicians' wanting to nail limits down and the scientists who couldn't really be sure because they were dealing with things they didn't fully understand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- It now says "Later one if 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit would be agreed to." Later on an"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's all I could find. Nice work as always. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments Support by Pendright[edit]
Lead:
- At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985 there emerged a claim that the second test was of a significantly higher yield than suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) as compared to 60 kilotonnes of TNT (250 TJ); but this claim remains unsubstantiated.
- Consider replacing the second “in” that follows Australia with "during" - it's defined as throughout the course or duration of a period of time.
- "At the time of the Royal Commission into British nuclear tests in Australia in 1984–1985" - this has the characteristics of an introductory phrase or clause, but without punctuation. A comma after 1985 would help breakup an otherwise 35-word stretch before a punctuated pause.
- The two tests would provide important information that would materially advance progress towards building a British hydrogen bomb.[11][12]
- There area was too isolated, with the nearest road over 100 miles (160 km) away, and only tracked vehicles or those with special tyres could traverse the intervening sand dunes.
Preparations:
- ... four RAF Hastings aircraft flew between the UK and Australia, and two Whirlwind helicopters provided a taxi service
G1:
- The fissile material was delivered by a RAF Hastings to Onslow, from whence it was collected by HMS Alert on 11 May and delivered to the Monte Bello Islands the following day.
- The following day, Martell set 16 May as the day for the test.
- The second day should be replaced with date - a date is a particular day.
- The main danger to the ships' crews was considered to be from radioactive seaweed, so the crews were prohibited from catching or eating fish, and ships' evaporators were not run.
- Add the definite article before the last mention of ships’.
G2:
- There then followed a period of waiting for suitable weather conditions.
Finished - Pendright (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]
- A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal date Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
- The British government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium --> "The British Government was anxious that Grapple should take place before a proposed moratorium" Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS.
- MOS:INSTITUTIONS says the opposite: that it should not be capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- After a re-read, I give you a point, but after a quick research I found out these [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] even the Australia Government's website and if we count this as reliable than I think countries' governments should be capitalised, even if this policy applied? It could be a WP:ENGVAR issue because I also see it a lot in British but not in American. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- MOS:INSTITUTIONS says the opposite: that it should not be capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- suggested by available figures: 98 kilotonnes of TNT (410 TJ) Link TNT and TJ.
- The British government expected that the United States --> "The British Government expected that the United States"
- the British government restarted its own development Same as above.
- cooperation vs co-operation
- The British government therefore resolved --> "The British Government therefore resolved"
- The British government was most anxious Same as above.
- I see a lot of "kilotonnes"; per MOS:UNITNAMES we shouldn't mention long units again after their first mentions.
- Doesn't have one. (Template:Convert) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Later a 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit Compound adjective here (and a typo in the article).
- In June 1955, the Admiralty Remove 1955 here; it's already mentioned a sentence before.
- chaired by Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan The Britons use a hyphen in their lieutenant general.
- The Australian government created a Monte Bello --> "The Australian Government created a Monte Bello"
- created by the Australian government to oversee Same as above.
- A pair of RAN 120ft Motor Lighters, MWL251 Convert?
- water and refrigeration respectively.[32][30][33] Re-order the refs here.
Down to G1. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC) @CPA-5: Anything more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there is more, give me a sec.
- A 15 July deadline was set as the terminal Is an awkward sentence if a compound adjective is a date in my eyes.
- G2 was going to be smaller than G1.[50][47][51] Re-order the refs.
- To avoid embarrassing the minister, the safety Which minister?
- An annual exposure of 150 millisieverts (15 rem) Link the units here.
- would receive a dose of 580 microsieverts (0.058 rem) Same as above.
- Seamen in Fremantle demanded that the SS Koolinda, a cattle transport What was she?
- Link Hermite Island?
- It is very small, uninhabited, and just one of 180 named islands in the Montebello Islands archipelago. I don't think an article will ever be created about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the "Summary" section kt should be kilotonnes?
- Link TJ in the infobox.
- I'm not a fan of just adding a name in an image without clarification; maybe add their type of ships to clarify it again?
- ould allow a 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) Compound adjective here.
- There area was too isolated Odd sentence; should it be "their"?
- AWTSC would be present on board the Task Force 308 flagship Not "onboard"?
Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Image review - pass[edit]
All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (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.