Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/History of the Manhattan Project/archive1

History of the Manhattan Project

The Manhattan Project was a research and development undertaking during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons. It was led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and Canada. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Einstein-Szilard letter prompted the president to initiate the project under the direction of the S-1 Executive Committee. It was subsequently merged with the British and Canadian projects by the 1943 Quebec Agreement.

Two types of atomic bombs were developed concurrently. The Thin Man gun-type design proved impractical to use with plutonium, and a simpler gun-type called Little Boy was developed that used uranium-235, an isotope that makes up only 0.7 percent of natural uranium. Chemically identical to the more abundant uranium-238, and with almost the same mass, it proved difficult to separate the two. Three methods were employed: electromagnetic in the calutrons; gaseous by the K-25 Project; and thermal by the S-50 Project. Most of this work was performed at the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Means for refining uranium were developed by the Ames Project.

In parallel with the work on uranium was an effort to produce plutonium. After its feasibility was demonstrated by Chicago Pile-1, the the world's first artificial nuclear reactor, the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago designed the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge and the production reactors at the Hanford Site, in which uranium was irradiated and transmuted into plutonium. This was then chemically separated from the uranium. The Fat Man implosion-type weapon using plutonium was developed in a concerted design and development effort by Project Y at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Heavy water for use in reactors designed by the Metallurgical Laboratory and the Canadian Montreal Laboratory was produced by the P-9 Project. Polonium was produced by the Dayton Project. The Manhattan Project was also charged with gathering intelligence through Operation Alsos, and defense against radioactive weapons under Operation Peppermint.

The first nuclear device ever detonated was a Fat Man bomb at the Trinity test on 16 July 1945. Little Boy and Fat Man bombs were used a month later in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The formerly secret project was made public by the Smyth Report. In the immediate postwar years, the Manhattan Project assisted weapons testing in Operation Crossroads. It maintained control over American atomic weapons research and production until January 1947, when the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 took effect.

These are all the pages in Category:History of the Manhattan Project. It forms a complete history of the Manhattan Project. Of the 35 articles in the set, 17 are Featured Articles and the timeline is a Featured List. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of topic definitely needs an intro paragraph to explain the link between these 30+ articles. Plus, it needs a book. Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book creator was turned off in September 2017. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs an intro, and please order the book in a readable manner. Right now it is impossible to gauge the completeness of the topic without doing serious research. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully ordered the articles in the book. It starts with the main article and the timeline. The other articles then follow in general chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that is in your own head. Without an intro and/or a decent book nobody can judge your own rationale. See Wikipedia:Featured_topics/Looking_Glass_Studios_video_games Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a introduction above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What line of thought you used to decide having these 35 articles selected, and not say 34 or 36? Right now it is hard to gauge how complete this overview topic is, since you only mentioned about 20 of the 35 articles in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing topic. It is unclear how exactly is it defined, and the thought process itself is not clear. Why does "History of" have locations? Do you have a plan for an overview topic of the MP which would include locations/people/etc? Nergaal (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're thinking of as locations are actually projects. I already proposed an overview topic that included people, based on the infobox, where the most significant people were chosen based on editor consensus (similar to the vital article process), but this was rejected. There are 384 articles in Category:Manhattan Project people, of which 60 were chosen for the infobox. All of the infobox articles (and perhaps 100 of the category) are rated GA or better, but there is no chance of them all being. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but do you have some sort of rationale listed somewhere for how topics around MP should be organized? It's unclear to me why these exact 35 were chosen, and not a different set of 35. The topic seems fine, but I can't navigate through the 35 articles and say wether article xyz is missing or should be removed. Was this list of 35 chosen in the past by some kind of peer review? Nergaal (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list consists of all the articles in the category Category:History of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the previous nomination and it had the same issue back then: how is the topic organized? The proposed topic in its current form might be 100% fine, but if you can't be bothered to explain the rationale you see for organizing the topic in the form you yourself proposed, why should reviewers be bothered to agree to your unexplained rationale? Nergaal (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it all above in the blurb. These are the historical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: a topic with the title "People involved in the MP" could have a FL lead, but it would not necessarily include any more people that the ones you put in here. The a large topic, can just include the most important people; if there are 384 people, there can be just a topic with the most relevant 20 people or so. The point of a topic is to collect articles in a rational, structured manner, and focusing on the most relevant articles in that specific topic is perfectly fine. For example, the topic on the Asteroid belt in the Solar System only includes the 4 largest bodies there (of the hundreds), since all the other asteroids are much smaller than the first 4. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would say that you don't understand why those were chosen. But I have no intention of creating a topic on the Manhattan Project people, because (1) No lead article exists; (2) there is no criteria for creating a subset of the group (although the important articles were chosen by consensus and placed in the navbox); (3) there is no possibility of getting all 384 in the category up to GA standard; (4) the category will continue to expand (I added two more last week); and (5) a topic subset based on a common navbox has already been rejected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a serious suggestion: start a personal page listing all the important articles to the MP, then put in there multiple topics proposals so people like me can give SOME feedback on how such a massive topic can be structured rationally. I a sure you spent years putting everything together, why not have a structured place for it? Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists at User:Hawkeye7. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why are you actively choosing to be a pain. This is a complex topic, and all the decisions on how this topic is put together is inside your head, with no option to peer-review the thought process. WP:FT? lists 1.e as: "(e) For overview topics, every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic." All the nomination process you have pretty much said "trust me, there is no need to explain my thought process on how this topic passes 1.e". Anyways, List of Cornell Manhattan Project people already exists, and I am sure an expanded list is perfectly ok. And again: For example, the topic on the Asteroid belt in the Solar System only includes the 4 largest bodies there (of the hundreds), since all the other asteroids are much smaller than the first 4. There are way more than 384 asteroids but the topic does exist even though only like 10 of those are GA+. Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you might find it useful to check Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria/Overview_topics#Example_2:_Michigan_State_University to see what I am asking for when I say show your thought process. Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where the most significant people were chosen based on editor consensus (similar to the vital article process) where is the talk page for this consensus? Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent work Hawkeye. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recall you had submitted this once before. Would you be able to provide a list of the differences between the two lists? Kees08 (Talk) 00:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous one was a larger list based on the contents of the Manhattan Project Navbox. The criticism was that it was based on the Navbox rather than a topic category. So I created a new FT based on one of the categories. There was one anomalous article in the category, which has since been added to the NavBox and promoted to GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to include all the top level important bits. Kees08 (Talk) 01:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow, incredible work. I find the topic very thorough, and can't think of a related page that would be need to add to this topic. Mattximus (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support really amazing work. Thank you for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I guess. Topic seems a mishmash of articles that are not clearly the only ones supposed to be included. Repeated requests of asking for the inclusion rationale got back trust me the nominator, I know the topic, and I don't want to show my thought process for the scope of the topic to reviewers; you are all supposed to say support, cause after working on 20+ articles, I can't be bothered to explain my own topic for others to peer-review my thought process. It is not up to the reviewers to prove that the topic is complete, but to the nominator. Nergaal (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what is in the instructions. It says: For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria and if nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. 02:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"if nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection" as I've asked you mulyiple times, you can explain the actual rationale behind these specific 35, beyond just "trust me". Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 35 form a topical category, and comprise a comprehensive history of the Manhattan Project. I summarised the Manhattan Project above, highlighting how the articles fit together. They were created individually by many editors, who decided their individual scope. I brought most of them to GA or FA; they are not cherry picked. The book and category would be useful to readers researching the subject, which is why I have nominated it. What specific subjects do you feel are not covered? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]