Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Montreal Laboratory

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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Montreal Laboratory

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Montreal Laboratory/archive1

Latest in the series on the Manhattan Project. This is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"They were temporarily installed in the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where they made progress on the design of a nuclear reactor, but the MAUD Committee was uncertain as to whether their work was relevant to the main task of Tube Alloys, that of building an atomic bomb, but there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in a bomb.": Ugh.
Y That is a long sentence. Split in twain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More later. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got a stomach bug today. Please ping me when Maury's done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"alternative source", "alternate source": consistency
Y "alternative" is correct here. Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"[17][8]", "[34][32][7]": order of refs
Y Hate those. The slightest change in wording can trigger tham. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ second reading goes well, good to go. Still like to see something on that 185l issue, but that can wait. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They were temporarily installed" - thus starts a run-on sentence. Suggest full stops at "reactor, but" and "bomb, but"
Y Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Canadian government" - a minor ROS here. Perhaps break at "proposal" or "initially".
Y Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and the laboratory was located in Montreal, initially in a house" - was this a lab, or just offices while they waited for the lab? The body text below is not detailed.
Y The problem is the two meanings of "laboratory". Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Two reactors were eventually built at Chalk River; the small ZEEP, which went critical on 5 September 1945" - as the second example is a separate statement, so should the one about ZEEP - remove the ";" and "which" basically.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"was for a time was the" -was, for a time, the"
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Americans, and Anglo" - "Americans. As Anglo ... the Montreal Laboratory scientists were denied access to..."
Y Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"with paraffin wax" - what was the purpose of the wax?
Y It's another moderator. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the dangers posed" - these don't appear to be "dangers", simply "problems"?
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"were captured" - "were captured in these materials", or perhaps "were absorbed in these materials"
It's a technical term, linked earlier. "By these materials" might confused the reader into thinking that they were captured by these materials, rather than impurities like boron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"180 kilograms"..."about 185 litres" - 185 l of D2O is about 205 kg. 180 kg of D2O is about 162 l. Something is wrong here.
I noticed that, and I double-checked the sources. I think they already had some heavy water. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checked. says 185 kg; Gowing (p. 51) says 185 kg. So going with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and about French patent claims" - on what exactly? Are these the ones mentioned below? Perhaps all of this could be placed in a single statement near this location?
Y Added the following on the French patents: "These included patents on controlling nuclear chain reactions, enriching uranium, and using deuterium as a neutron moderator. There were also two patents applications in conjunction with Egon Bretscher and Norman Feather on the production and use of plutonium." Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Cambridge,[14]and" - missing space.
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Howe cabled Sir John Anderson" - I suggest simply "Anderson" at this point and herein.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This had attractions from the perspective" - "This offered various advantages including"
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"cooperation to a standstill"..."come to a complete standstill" - perhaps a different term for one of these two?
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"1943, the Prime Minister" - worth adding Canadian here, "1943, the Canadian Prime Minister"
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"in the world.[36] With the passage" - this is out of place in a para describing the reactors. Move below?
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"light water.[37] By the end" - para break.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"who secretly supplied tiny samples" - samples from and to whom?
Y Pavel Angelov. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but British hopes were disappointed" ...apparently by a... "full and effective cooperation on atomic energy" - it is not clear why they are disappointed here.
Y Added: "The British government had trusted that America would share nuclear technology, which the British saw as a joint discovery." Does that address your concern? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Overall, looks quite good to me, Hawkeye. Just a few minor comments or suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

technical review: no dup links were identified; no dabs identified; ext links all work;
suggest adding alt text;
"File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": should have a description added to the image description page on Commons;
"File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": not a warstoper, but if there was any way to move the handwritten comments on the image, it would probably be a bit more visually appealing;
image licencing looks ok to me, assuming that the assertion on "File:NRX Pile Building and ZEEP Building- Cooling Tanks 1945.jpg" that URAA does not apply, means that no US licence is required. If this is not the case, it shouldn't be a drama: PD-US-1996 would be applicable in my opinion then.
"File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": probably needs a US licence;
"File:Montreal Group.jpg": same as the above
"File:TrumanAtleeKing1945.jpg": US licence should probably be adjusted to "PD-US-1996"
Y All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the References, the Manhatten District History: is there an OCLC number that can be added here?
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
citation order: "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[19][2]" --> "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[2][19]" (this is a very pedantic nitpick...there are a couple of other examples that I could see elsewhere, too)
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if there is a particularly iconic image, potentially it would enhance the visual appeal of the article if it were added to the lead;
We could use the one of the Big Three? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's all I've got. Once again, Hawkeye, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (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.