Talk:Manhattan Project/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Manhattan Project/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Manhattan Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manhattan_Project&oldid=401421604]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manhattan_Project&oldid=401842699]

This is a very good article, in my opinion. I have gone through it and done a light copy edit, section by section. Please review my changes and tweak as necessary. I have the following other comments/suggestions:

• in the lead "Tall Boy" - is this correct? It seems to link to a British convention bomb;
• Ooops. Should be "Little Boy". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the lead "Fat Man" is mentioned, but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose. In the Thin Man section, there is a photo caption that indicates that there is a difference between "Thin Man" and "Fat Man";
• Done. Added "Fat Man". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• watch out for overlink, some examples include: "Oak Ridge" and "Belgian Congo";
• Removed these. Also a few others. As a top-level article, it has a role of tying together a plethora of subarticles, but in the process of pulling them together, some over-linking occurred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Hanford subsection, "Where possible, the Army allowed the crops to be harvested, but this was not always possible" - repeated word "possible" - could this perhaps be reworded?
• Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• "went critical" - could this be explained, or wikilinked perhaps?
• Added an explanation in the Chicago section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Electromagnetic separation section, "By April K-25 was producing enriched uranium sufficiently good to feed directly into the Beta tracks" - "sufficiently good" stands out for me here. Do you mean "of sufficient quality"?
• Changed to "sufficiently enriched" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Gaseous diffusion section you have wikilinked "Cost Plus Fixed Fee", but I think this could be wikilinked earlier as it seems to have been mentioned earlier;
• Removed link. Did you spot a difference between the contract with DuPont and the one with Halliburton?
• Yes, I was struck by that. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Gaseous diffusion section, you have both "six stage" and "six-stage";
• Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Weapon design section there is a Main article link to "Little Boy", but the term doesn't seem to be explained in the prose;
• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Reactor design section, this might need rewording: "develop a process for hot dipping process without success" ("process...process");
• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Reactor design section, "Disappointingly, most cans canned slugs initially failed the tests..." (should "cans" have a possessive apostrophe here? I'm not sure myself);
• No, deleted "cans". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Reactor design section, I think the times should have colons per WP:MOSTIME, e.g "0300" should be "03:00";
• Ecch. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Reactor design section, I think there is a missing word here but I'm not sure exactly what it should be "in which the reactor had 1,500 arranged in a circle..." (1,500 what?);
• tubes. Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki section, why was Kyoto removed from the list of targets? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Added "on the grounds of its historical and religious significance" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for these responses. Looks good now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• a (Disambiguations): {{GAList/check|y}} b Linkrot {{GAList/check|y}} c Alt text {{GAList/check|y}}

:* there are a few disambig links found by the tools which should be fixed: [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Manhattan_Project];

:**Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:* ext links largely okay, but one reports as possibly broken: [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Manhattan_Project];

:**Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:* images mainly lacking Alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in later. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.
• :a (prose): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS): {{GAList/check|y}}

:*All issues dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.
• :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}

:*No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.
• :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}

:*No issues.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.
• :a (fair representation): {{GAList/check|y}} b (all significant views): {{GAList/check|y}}

:*No issues.

• It is stable.
• :No edit wars etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}

:*Lots of recent changes and given its visibility possibly a target for some drive-by edits, but nothing that consistutes an edit war, IMO.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
• :a (tagged and captioned): {{GAList/check|y}} b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): {{GAList/check|y}} c (non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain': {{GAList/check|y}}

:*No issues.

• Overall:
• :a Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}

:*Excellent work with what is a very big topic. Passes GA in my opinion. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)