Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metallurgical Laboratory/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 [1].

Metallurgical Laboratory

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, one of the key sites of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have one query. In British and Australian English, "down tools" means stop work as a form of industrial action. I take it from your edit that this may not be understood by American readers? So I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. In American English, your edit "taking action" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ A year later the opening paragraph, much less the opening sentence, still doesn't say what the Metallurgical Project is. What is it, by the way? I think if no one is willing to do the most basic work on an article to address issues already raised, it's premature to nominate it for FA status. See old ignored post on article talk page. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BA (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the article. Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One word? Is it a building? A project (if so to do what)? A group of scientists? A mission? Wasn't the Met Lab the group that was supposed to design the first production pile? The first sentence is more about the Manhattan Project, the second about the Metallurigcal Project, then we move confusedly onto when it was established, whatever it is, some Nobel laureate, a university. The Metallurgical Lab is a cat. What is it? If it can't be said outright without all these asides that seem to be obscuring a lack of insight, I'm not sure there's enough information to write a FA. I disagree with it being a good article with this lead. I'm pretty sure it's the mission for creating the production pile, but not positive. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:87 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It already says it all. If you cannot comprehend something so simple, you cannot review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The lead is obscured by asides everywhere. It talks about everything the Met Lab is part of, people who had Nobel prizes and led universities. Maybe you know what the Met Lab is. So, why not say it? "A rocket is a ...." "An electron is a ...." "The Metallurgical Laboratory is a ...." Not what it's part of. What it is. Not where it was. What is the Metallurgical Laboratory? What is it?

Even here, you want to bring it to FA, but you discuss me rather than say what the Met Lab is. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some examples from other parts of the Manhattan Project: "The Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (ALAAP), was a United States munitions plant ...." "The Alsos Mission was an organized effort by a team of United States military, scientific, and intelligence personnel ...." "The Ames process is a process by which pure uranium metal is obtained." "The Ames Project was a research and development project." Then after saying what it is the articles go on to say where and the topic's role in the Manhattan Project. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-organised the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My only opposition was the lead, but I don't know how to do a strike through, maybe someone could take care of that?. I think the lead is not only better but quite good. Thank you. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:54 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

Be consistent on using states with publication locations, you sometimes give them and sometimes don't (i.e. Berkeley ...I understand not doing New York, but Berkeley is not a well known world city nor is Urbana (trust me, I live near Urbana!)
I imagine that it is a university town. I have added states to the locations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

the term "bone seeker" in the lead should be explained in layman's terms, also in the body, and linked
Astonishingly, bone seeker has an article, so linked to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest μg is not commonly recognised, and microgram be used and linked, with the abbrev after in parentheses
I would have thought it was pretty common; it's been on the Year 2 syllabus since 1972. There is an article though, so linked to that.
link Zinn at first mention (instead of second), and then use just Zinn per WP:SURNAME
done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Anderson
done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the license of File:Argonne history Chicago Pile-3.jpg needs work, I think the DoE license would be the right one to use here
done. I vaguely recall that Flickr does not allow you to upload with PD, so many agencies up;load PD images as CC-BY-SA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, great work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I made a couple of minor copyedits; please revert if necessary. The article looks in very good shape, and I was unable to find much to complain about. I just have one query: "The discovery of the neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, followed by that of nuclear fission by German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938, and its theoretical explanation (and naming) by Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch soon after, opened up the possibility of a controlled nuclear chain reaction with uranium." Does "its theoretical explanation" refer to the neutron, or to fission? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedits are fine. I have removed the first clause about the discovery of the neutron, as it not only introduced the ambiguity you pointed out, but made the sentence a bit too long. Meitner and Frisch theorised fission; Chadwick and Rutherford theorised the neutron. I find it fascinating that neutrons, objects that you can't see and whose existence is a scientific theory, are the basis of such a wealth of practical applications. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good; Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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