Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

Article promoted. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Continuing the series of articles on nuclear weapons, here is the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the successor to the Manhattan Project. If you ever wanted to know what happened next, here is an article... Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"These involved their maintenance, storage and handling in the field" partially repeats what was said in the first paragraph
- Rewritten introduction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to wikilink the Atomic Energy Commission two paragraphs in a row
- Rewritten introduction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A hand picked team of officers was trained in their assembly and handling" - should be "hand-picked", should specify who picked them (if known), and should specify Army (I'm assuming?)
- Groves picked them. All were Army officers. Because he chose only from the top 10 percent of West Point graduates, all were from the Army Corps of Engineers, like Groves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Patterson and issued a memorandum" - is this supposed to be Patterson and someone else?
- Forrestal. He seems to have gone missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"However, its role and organization remained much the same, with Admiral Parker remaining as its first director. However..." - suggest rephrasing to avoid repetition. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- One dab link [1].
  - C-97
- External links all check out [2] (no action required).
- Images all have Alt Text [3] (no action required).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
- Typo here in the lead: "A nuclear weapons development proceeded", should possibly be "As nuclear weapons development proceeded..."
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo here also I think: "According, Groves was appointed to the Military Liaison Committee...", possibly should be "Accordingly, Groves was appointed to the Military Liaison Committee."
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word (or maybe too many words) here I think: "The bomb's electrical power for the came from a pair of lead-acid batteries."
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strauss, now an AEC commissioner, was disturbed at the number of AFSWP personnel who were participating, and feared that a sneak attack on Eniwetak would wipe out the nation's ability to assemble nuclear weapons." Do we know who Strauss fear would perpetrate such an attack? (minor point).
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo here "...the wartime commander of the Manhattan District, during the was designated as his successor, with the rank major general." Specifically "during the was".
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence seems out of place chronologically (to me at least): "By 1959, the nuclear stockpile had grown to 12,305 weapons, of which 3,968 were in AEC custody and the remaining 8,337 were held by the Department of Defense." The next paragraph goes back to 1953. Perhaps move it to the "Conversion to Defense Atomic Support Agency" section (suggestion only).
- Typo here I think: "It enhanced the authority of the Secretary of Defense, who was establish such defense..." Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a few tweaks, but otherwise it looks good to me. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is good, just fix: Locations: Washington, DC versus Washington, D.C.; New York, New York:… versus New York:… Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very well written and comprehensive article - great work. I have some suggestions for further development of the article through:
- I don't think that proposals are 'disapproved' - while longer, 'did not approve it' or similar is probably better English
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did Lilienthal not think that Groves' appointment was a good idea?
  - Done added a bit Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major General Roscoe C. Wilson, who had worked with Silverplate during the war" - the 'worked with Silverplate' sounds a bit odd - should this be 'formed part of the Silverplate project' or similar?
  - Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anything be added on the day to day experiences of the men who worked on the weapons assembly teams? Given that they were of above average quality, did they find weapons assembly work tedious? Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.