Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tube Alloys/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2017 [1].

---

Tube Alloys

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:George_Paget_Thomson.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Appleton.jpg

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• File:John_Anderson,_1st_Viscount_Waverley_1947.jpg: not seeing that that specific photo is under that license?

  It says that all the photographs are all under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, where are you seeing that? This page doesn't give a license for that image, whereas this one (or the Google Translate version thereof) says that only 38% of all digitized images have that license. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Hmmm. It appears that the image is by Yousuf Karsh, and was taken in 1943. I don't know if/when copyrights expire in Canada; in Australia it would be expired. I'll assume that copyrights do not expire in Canada, and have removed the image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• File:NRX_Pile_Building_and_ZEEP_Building-_Cooling_Tanks_1945.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Niels_Bohr_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  Somewhere between 1945 and 1961. I have a book from 1961; but Google n-grams says I should be looking for one published in 1957. How early do we need? In Australia the de jure answer would be 1946, the year the image was deposited in the archive; this may be the case in Canada too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  For the first one, we actually only need a pre-1978 publication; PD-Canada allows for copyright expiration for creation-only pre-1946 for photos. The second is trickier - what US PD tag should be applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Does that apply to Crown copyright? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  Damn. I wanted to have a picture of Niels Bohr. This one is PD having been created in 1935, but I'm not sure what the position is in the uS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support, looks great. --John (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support (subject to resolution of the remaining issues with the images). I have read Ronald W Clark's book and this article augments it well with what we have learnt since his book was published in 1961. A superb article, well done. Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Current note 18 - Martin, Roy - needs a publisher

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• What makes http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com a high quality reliable source? It's a blog...

  It is by Alex Wellerstein, an academic renowned fore his work on the history of nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.atomicarchive.com/Company/Company.shtml a high quality reliable source?

  I've always found it to be so, but I have switched to the Avalon Project's version Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• What makes https://wikileaks.org/wiki/How_Britain_got_the_bomb#Penney_and_the_Start_of_the_Post-War_British_Atomic_Bomb_Program a high quality reliable source? Wikileaks? REALLY?

  It reproduces the original document. Added another source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd have axed the wikileaks source as it gives a very iffy place prominence, but ... that's just me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support with minor comments:
• "This prompted the United Kingdom to (re)launch its own project" - (re)launch felt a bit awkward here

  Changed to "relaunched" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• "codename Operation Hurricane" - I don't think the italics are right here; later on, it is simply "Operation Hurricane", and I don't think we normally italicise op names?

  I wish we had a standard for codenames. Changed to "operation Hurricane". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• " French Secret Service" - could we link to the relevant article?

  Mais oui. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• 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. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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