Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hanford Engineer Works

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hanford Engineer Works

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Hanford Engineer Works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


All requirements met. Consensus to promote exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources.

On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article.

It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. It had a prior nomination which can be found here. Since then, EEng and I have gone over the article, trimming it down somewhat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

Great to see some more Manhattan Project stuff, Hawkeye. I could take a while to get through it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Contractor selection
Site selection

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Land acquisition
Township (Hanford)
MOS:RACECAPS indicates African-American and Hispanic are probably the best labels here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Township (Richland)
Personnel
  • the welded joints stretched 15 km? Do you mean pipes with welded joints?
    Welded joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth were there 15 km of joints? What were the welds joining? Other joints? This makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The welds were joining pipes. You weld two pieces of 15 cm pipe together you have ~ 45 cm of welding joints. Join 300,000 of them and you have 15 km of welding joints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't. It might sound like I'm being pedantic here, but I'm not. You have "45 cm of piping with welded joints", or "15 km of piping with welded joints". "Welded joints" are the locations where the surface of two or more two metals or non-metals are fused together by the welding process with or without the application of pressure and filler. "Welded joints" isn't some sort of commonly-used shorthand for "pipes with welded joints", it refers only to the actual joints themselves. The actual welded joints themselves are of negligible length compared to the length of the pipe they are joining, because a weld only covers a very small portion of the pipes. It still makes no sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. The source says; "Most of the 50,000 linear feet of welded joints would be inaccessible when the pile was completed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run a search on the internet, and linear feet was the standard measure of welding productivity on the old measurements. For example: "The East Bay Aqueduct has been in successful operation since June, 1929. There are 870,000 linear feet of electrically welded longitudinal seams and 24,000 linear feet of circular seams in the 82.5 miles of steel pipe line." [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still very odd. But, anyway, a minor matter. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Health and safety

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of article

HF - support

edit

Ping me when Peacemaker67 is done with this and I will take a look. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: PM is finished, so you can have a look now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Re-pinging, as the last probably didn't work ;) Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Located at the Hanford Site in Benton County, Washington. It was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor." - combine these two in some way; the first bit is a sentence fragment
  • checkY I don't see anything wrong with it; grammatically, it is an introductory clause. Re-worded anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article seems to be focused on the Manhattan project usage, I think it would be helpful to add a sentence to the lead referencing the transfer to the Atomic Energy Commission, as the end of the scope of this subarticle is not currently obvious from the lead

Ready for Land Acquisition, will continue later. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In all, 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired" - the table has 428,203.65 - is one of the two a typo?
  • checkY Yes. It should be 65 not 95. Checked against the source and double-checked the arithmetic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This year was its last; the school closed on 13 February 1945" - last school year, or last full school year? Is it known if it would have started the first semester of 1944-45?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

edit
  • Consider archiving online sources.

Harrias

edit

Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this, the Christmas period was busier than I expected!

  • Not keen on the MOS:SEAOFBLUE here "..Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George C. Marshall."
  • "It had originally been intended that the reactors at the Oak Ridge site.." Seems to be missing some words?
    checkY Added missing words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(about 100,000 KW)" – This should be kW.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designed as Area E.." Assume this should be designated, rather than designed?
    checkY That's right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..often working in the shipyards in Seattle, or had joined the military.." The article switches tense here; both should match.
    checkY Matched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The farmers had to pay their share of irrigation district land from the sale of their property." I don't understand what this means?
    It would be a big help if the relevant article wasn't a stub. In the United states, water belongs public, but the state can sell the right to use water. Irrigation districts were formed under Federal law to "reclaim" (ie develop) land for agricultural use. Farmers bought shares in the district which provided them with water and paid for their shares from the proceeds of their crops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..seeking an explanation of the choice of the location.." This one always catches me out, but I'm pretty sure it should be "an explanation for".
    checkY Um, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding {{Main|Hanford, Washington}} and {{Main|Richland, Washington}} at the start of the relevant sub-sections.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was appalled at the idea.." It isn't immediately obvious who "he" is here.
    checkY Groves. Changed as suggested. Neighbourhood segregation by social class is the norm in the United States, but Groves was an Army brat who grew up on military reservations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent were non-white." As these numbers are presented together, comparatively, it feels odd that one is a rough number, written out, while the other is a precise number in numerical form.
    Matches the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recruiting workers was one problem; keeping them was another. Turnover was a serious problem." Not keen on the repetition of "problem"; maybe switch one to "issue" or similar?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stafford L. Warren, the head of the medical section of the Manhattan Project arranged medical.." This could do with a comma after "Project".
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in the 200 area, the area containing the plutonium processing facilities.." Not keen on this close repetition of "the area", can it be rephrased to something like "..in the 200 area, which contained the plutonium processing facilities.."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was one other production area, the 300 area.." And again; could it be "production zone"?
    checkY Changed to "site". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..to over ninety percent." As we're comparing this figure to the previously given "75 percent", could we put it in the same, numerical form.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the frost test, the article switches to providing the temperature in celsius (fahrenheit) rather than the other way around which is used elsewhere.
    checkY Flipped the order. Celsius was of course used at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed to the end of the Fabrication section, more to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting a new review below after the Fabrication section where this third review left off. I have skimmed the entire article. I will look at the earlier part of the article after "completing" this third review. I suspect the the review has already been thorough and mostly needs confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

If this goes to FAC, I do hope they'll accept this there as well, as this article is going to be a lot of work. I'm reviewing this version, so this image review should stand as long as no new images are added.

Including the one in the infobox at the bottom, this article has, by my count, twenty-six images. As such, I'm just going to group things by issue(s).

...And I am so sorry to have found so many; half the images have some issue, but they're pretty much all minor. My gut feeling is there's nothing to worry about here, buuuut.... that's not how these reviews work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. I think some people were intimidated by the large number of images. I was like a kid in a candy store trying to chose them from so many beautiful images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This is fairly normal, and there's no other issues to worry about with these. Site links aren't permanent. Basically, I think these are fine, but can't confirm. Would be really weird if they weren't.

File:Hanford B-Reactor Area 1944.jpg

It is fine. One thing worth noting on many of the images is the Manhattan Project's id number. This is not a watermark; it was written on the negative. I have replaced the link with one to the image in NARA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg

The "another copy link works fine". [3] and [4] also works. (NB: Not an image of the site selection team.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland Washington.jpg

Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack an {{Information}} template and other basic documentation
edit

File:Hanford Reach.jpg

I see no reason why it should, but added a template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Linking the image
edit

File:Old_Hanford_farmhouse.jpg - The Internet Archive link is to the file, not the documentation

You can also find it here You have to drill down from here and go through the gallery, which is what the Commons description points to. (Note Manhattan Project id number) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of Hanford Construction Camp.jpg - the only source link is to the image itself, this makes it impossible to check the details.

Again, note the Manhattan Project id number. You can find the image here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Driver at the Hanford Engineer Works.jpg ditto.

Ditto! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong source?
edit

File:Prefabricated housing at Hanford Site 1944.jpg I'm not seeing the image at the link.

They changed the page! Switched to an archive link. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, with a caveat
edit

Flickr site claims copyright, but false copyright claims are common, especially as Flickr's default state is presuming copyright. DDRS is "Declassified Document Retrieval System" [5] - it's probably worth saying that.

Yes, these are from a big dump of declassified images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland High School.jpg

This is the other form you see sometimes. Instead of the D number being written on the negative, it is on a sign in the image itself. I like these because they also give us the exact date on which the image was taken. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old_Hanford_High_School_in_1954.jpg

Added Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford camp trailer park.jpg

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richland housing area.jpg

Added. (Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine but have to call you up anyway
edit

File:224-T finishing in Dec 1944.jpg From [6] "Thumbnail images have been added to Gerber's text by the Webmaster. Click on the thumbnail for a full sized image." - Like, I don't see how a photograph of a classified site wouldn't be US Army or the like, but.... I don't think this appears in the original source, but this, I think, is the original text, and every photo in it is photocopy-of-a-photocopy'd to oblivion.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number. The SECRET stamp has been whited out.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fine
edit

File:Hanford_Engineer_Works.png - Presuming that the book is a US Federal Government publication - and I don't see any reason to think it isn't - this is fine.

Yes. The book is the Army's official history of the Manhattan Project produced by the US Army Center of Military History. You can download a copy from here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assembled slug.jpg - Same as above.

This is from the Manhattan District History (MDH), a secret history of the project that Groves commissioned in 1944. It has now been declassified (mostly) and made available online (mostly) from here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3766-NEG_Hanford_Airport_control_tower_under_construction.jpg - This threw me a bit as to where the information came from, but then I realised the file name on the archive site is "3766-NEG (1944) CONSTRUCTION OF HANFORD AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER.JPG" - So there's the information. The site itself confirms the copyright, so we're fine here

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanford construction work force.jpg Even if this wasn't a US Federal Government publication, there's no copyright notice in the entire publication. I checked.

File:Group Shot (8474761680).jpg - Very obviously US Federal Government work; link makes that very clear. (Department of Energy's Flickr)

I particularly wanted to include it because it shows lots of black people working on the project.

File:HD.6B.437 (11324863236).jpg same as above.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.134_(10405869525).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.4A.132 (10405868435).jpg Same again.

(Note the Manhattan Project id number.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HD.12B.001 (11823724886).jpg Same again. File:Front Face of the reactor (full view).JPG - Standard Wikipedian-created-and-released work.

File:B Reactor Tube Loader.JPG - Ditto

File:Project cost summary - Hanford Engineer Works.jpg Source checks out. Clearly a declassified document.

I had trouble formatting it up, so I just clipped it from the MDH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nagasakibomb.jpg - Very well documented.

@Adam Cuerden: Everything okay now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I swear I said it was. Yes. Everything accounted for. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 00:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - Support

edit

Review will start with Irradiation section.

Separation

End of the article; posting these comments and will read the article from the beginning to this point.

Land acquisition

  • "Finally there were two parcels of land designated as Area E, which was acquired only if necessary." Area E shows on the map but the article says nothing more about whether it was acquired in whole or in part and what it was used for.
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richland

  • "Hiring a removalist..." Wikipedia redirects "removalist" to "Moving company." I think I am probably typical as an American who can confidently say that I have never read or heard the term "removalist" used for a moving company. Canada has a "Canadian Movers' Association" and one of their largest carriers is "Centennial Moving." I suggest using the linked term moving company or at most using both terms in the alternative with a link to moving company.
    checkY Changed as suggested. I had never heard this term, and I worked for one for a time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completes my review of the article. Donner60 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 Thanks. All comments are addressed. I support promotion of the article. Since this article now has the appropriate reviews and three supports, a consensus to promote now exists. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Hanford_Engineer_Works&oldid=1211337937"