Talk:High Explosive Research
{{Talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = GAN
| action1date = 00:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
| action1link = Talk:High Explosive Research/GA1
| action1result = listed
| action1oldid = 764272750
|action2=WAR
|action2date=05:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
|action2link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/High Explosive Research
|action2result=approved
|action2oldid=772018482
|action3=FAC
|action3date=2017-09-01
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/High Explosive Research/archive1
|action3result=promoted
|action3oldid=798230602
|action4=GTC
|action4date=01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom/archive1
|action4result=promoted
|ftname=Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
| dykdate = 16 February 2017
| dykentry = ... that whilst carrying out High Explosive Research, British scientists developed atomic weapons?
| currentstatus=FA
| maindate = June 21, 2020
| topic = Warfare
| four = yes
|otd1date=2023-05-12|otd1oldid=1154291087
|otd2date=2024-05-12|otd2oldid=1223503360
|otd3date=2025-05-12|otd3oldid=1290074334
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|A-Class=pass|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|British=y|Technology=y|Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=high}}
}}
Grammatical Error
Under this section: High Explosive Research#Manhattan Project - Third paragraph.
Currently reads, "The British considered produce an atomic bomb without American help, but the project would need overwhelming priority, the cost was staggering, disruption to other wartime projects was inevitable, and it was unlikely to be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war in Europe."
In addition, it may be worthwhile to restructure sentence to address run-on nature. -Aenaphos (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Ironically
{{u|Hawkeye7}} reverted my removal of this apparent bit of editorialising. MOS:EDITORIAL recommends against this sort of writing. It's far better just to state the facts and let the reader decide whether it's ironic. An alternative would be if we can attribute the judgement: "Professor Arnold Wu in his history of the cold war, has pointed out the irony that by this time the Soviets had penetrated the UK programme's security" or something. John (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:It was ironic. Without this bridge, the text strongly implies that the British knew about the spies, which is not true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::I agree it was ironic, but I do not need Wikipedia to make that judgement for me and indeed it contravenes best practice. I'm sure there is a better way we can do it. John (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I think I found a better form of words. John (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)