Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 13 years ago by TCO in topic TCO review (2/3 level parse) in progress

TCO review (2/3 level parse) in progress

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago144 comments2 people in discussion

LEDE

edit

Infobox

edit
  • crop the image. lot of empty space a the top.
  • crop the caption. We shouldn't link Trinity as it is linked in article (try to AVOID formatting in captions). Also, don't describe nuclear blast in two different linked terms.
  • Actually, I hate the entire infobox (crufty) other than the bomb image and the shoulder patch. Especially the engagements like Italy (wtf?)...but really the whole thing. Consider deleting it and just having an image.
  • the world war 2 series template really belongs at end!

Origins

edit
  • Slizard lizard letter was already linked! cut the blue. So was Roosevelt. Please. Be sparing with the blue.
  • New para before "on 28JUN" (when dealing with highly technical or detailed...and this qualifies...content, then try to use simpler sentences and paras).
    •   Done
  • delink plutonium
    •  N This is its first use
  • The S-1 Uranium committe has two links within the SAME paragraph!
    •   Done Unlinked.
  • delink order of magnitude and bomber. These are easily understood terms, not critical to redirect readers to...and we already struggle under a lot of blue from names of people and facilities.
  • delink secretary of war and chief of staff of the army. Try to prioritize...especially when you face blue next to blue. in this case the individual is more important to link than the "role" which is self explanatory.
    •  N Both the post and the person are significant. There is no War Department any more, so cannot assume that readers will know what it was. Similarly, non-military readers may not understand the significance of the chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Proposals

edit

bomb design concepts

edit
  • delink theoretical physicist
  • delink operational security
  • don't understand the hydrodymanics link (technically)
    • That's not a bad article actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • The Wiki article is fine, but it is a head-scratcher to use the term hydrodynamics in that context...and then when you go to the link it is really about a very broad general concept on hydrodynamics, not modelling of explosions. It's really a lot of concepts and parentheticals (via dash) in the sentence. I might just cut "hydrodynamics—" as it is low value and confusing and simplifies sentence.TCO (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • delink experimental physicist
  • sweet diagram!!!
  • Can you (at leat to me) explain the spheroid comment?
    • The top design is the bullet type, except with a spere instead of a cyclinder. The second from the top is an assembly with two hemispheres passing laterally.
      • Suggest to cut " spheroids,". Again, you are linking to a very basic concept article and then it's kind of a head scratcher whey we say oid versus sphere. I think if you cut the word, the sentence flows fine without the pause on thinking about exact geometry.TCO (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • love the quote at the end!

MED

edit

MPC

edit

UK collab

edit
  • nice quote

Oak Ridge

edit

Los Alamos

edit

Argonne

edit
  • I'm unclear what happened. Were the pilot plant plans just redrawn or did they actually build the Pu plant at OR? Or was the reactor at Stagg Field, a Pu pilot plant?
    • Neither, it was an experimental reactor. X-10 was the pilot; the reactors at Hanford were the production plants. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Maybe add a little something to the second para to explain that the Stagg field plant was different than the pilot plant. Maybe some topic sentence at the beginning of the first or second paragraph. I basically get the gist of it now (Argonne failed twice: was too small or close the Chitown for the pilot plant, and was too slow getting going for the experimental reactor). Also, I guess the experimental reactor was smaller scale than the pilot plant and earlier in operation. donno if you want to change the ordering. I know you are following a chronology, but when I think project, I think of the smaller plant first (no worries, do what you can!)TCO (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • delink bleachers

Hanford

edit

Canadian sites

edit
  • delink platinum and carbon (you already have "catalyst" to send people to and linking "carbon" serves little value...plus later on nickel-chromia are not wikilinked). Anyone going to catalyst will find a good discussion that includes use of noble metals.
  • "The Chalk River, Ontario, site was established to house the Allied effort at McGill University at the Montreal Laboratory." Perhaps add a "previously" after "effort". Just read confusing locationally.
  • "Since the site was 120 miles (190 km) west of Ottawa," Just reads a little funny. Perhaps just say that there was no nearby big town and not bother with the Ottowa thing. Or just cut the whole phrase (reads fine to just say they built a new town).
  • I guess this is sort of obvious in a way, but saying something up higher (in lead? In project concept?) that explains that all the "reactors" were for making Pu. It finally clicked with me, and I guess it is covered further down...and I hate duplication. But just wonder if there is a way to help orient the reader earlier. We are reading a lot of detail and the more we understand the logic and structure, the easier. Please don't take this critically btw. I LOVE the map and the discussion of site by site.
    • Thanks for that about the map. It took ages to do. The reactors were primarily for making Pu, but also made smaller amounts of other elements. The most important was Po for the Po/Be initiators. After the war Wigner disease forced reactor operations to be curtailed and making Po became their most important function. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Obviously the 1947 reactor was too late to contribute to the first bombs. Wonder if we should cut it. Donno. Also, I was left wondering if ZEEP contributed (I guess it must have).
  • I think the "which" clause needs commas (is a nonrestrictive parenthetical phrase).

Raw materials

edit
  • crop the bottom of the photo. You end up having a caption that is too fuzzy to read, within the image, and then have to repeat it below. It is a beauty of an image though!
  • Also on Wiki, they doCn't want periods on non-complete sentence captions (most journals would have a period...but Wiki is different).
  • "in a warehouse on Staten Island" (is confusing...is that where they put the ore, or did the negotiation? maybe just cut it.)
  • Maybe put a "contractors" before "Westinghouse and Metal Hydrides". Was just confused who the second entity was and if we were supposed to know it already.
  • Consider a para break before "By July"
  • clarify that the electrolytic process was not the Ames process (I guess it was the "slow" Westinghouse process?)
  • Silver story is great fun, but seems a trifle long for a para...but I can't find a logical break either. (no action needed, just reflecting).
  • I think tell us the year of the 3 August (not clear if it was 1942 or 1943, reading the stuff above. And then the connection of the 3(?) different processes for reduction (slow Westinghouse, Ames, silver) is confusing.
  • It's fine as is, but arguably you can delink Ames, Iowa as you already have the school linked and they are pretty dependant on each other.
  • Delink magnetic coil (it's an easy to understand concept and the article is not very good either). If you do keep the wikilink at least link to an appropriate section within that article (as whole article is about all sorts of coils).
  • Are you sure about the "of a percent"? That means 1/3,600,000th of the total? 1 part in 4 million? If it really is correct, I think just giving the decimal expression might be more impressive (bunch of zeros) or discussing in ppbs.
  • Relooking at this section with fresh eyes, I think we should probably move the silver story into electrical separation. Then retitle this "Refining" and stick it as the first part of uranium (could leave it up on its own, too, I guess, if you get persnikety about U going to reactors as well as separation).

Electromagnetic separation

edit
  • cut the first "only" and then "rarer but"
  • "Natural uranium consists of 99.3% uranium-238 and only 0.7% uranium-235, but only the latter is fissile. The rarer but chemically identical uranium-235 has to be physically separated from the more plentiful isotope. Various methods were considered for uranium enrichment, most of which was carried out at Oak Ridge.[98]" This whole section belongs at a higher level of heirarchy than within electromagnetic. Suggest elevating it to the Uranium level. If you do that, I would add some sentence listing the 3 options. Normally am against that if the sections make it clear, but in this case would help where you have some comparison of methods within the electromagnetic separation section.
  • delink uranium enrichment.
  • "devices known as the" reads as if there is an error in number agreement. I would just cut the phrase anyway...it's just fill and you already have a wikilink as well as an explanation of the term after caulutron.
  • "The electromagnetic process was based upon the fact that charged particles are deflected in a magnetic field and the amount of deflection depends upon the particle's mass." Can we rewrite this to cut the fact that? I am not a super writer, but maybe something like "The calutrons used magnetic fields to deflect moving charged particles, which resulted in a sorting by mass." Or somethin'. But maybe continuing to talk about it from the calutron POV gives more connection to what we said before, too.
  • remove period on caption (racetrack)
  • I would cut the "scientifically elegant". Even if the source said so, it is kind of a debatable concept. Also, the sentences that come later support the assertion of industrial inefficency, but not the scientific inelagence...whatever that is.
  • I would have thought reckoned got two n's, but the dictionary favors you.
  • "Responsibility..." There are 13 sentences in here--give us a para break or two.
  • "due to the power" -> "because of the power" (grammar)
  • That's a great picture and story about the lady at the control panel. Please delink the terms though (are linked in text, keep captions clean). Also, we need a reference for the story.
  • delink "hillbilly" (keep the quotes though).
  • The discussion of percentages at the end has a bunch of numbers and is referenced, but still reads confusingly, to really understand the story. Obviously there is an intrinsic issue of most of the U being 238 (so perfect separation to 100% 235 would lead to about a 1 in 150 yeild). It isn't clear here what the expectation was for level of enrichment emerging from alpha and beta. and then how they did in terms of enrichment level. "recovery efforts helped raise the enrichment of the product to 10% in January 1945": but you told us in the first sentence that they were making 13-15% in 44?
  • Also, this last paragraph is one where we talk about the different processes feeding into each other. Another argument for some meta-explanation at the beginning of Uranium.

Gaseous diffusion

edit
  • Also the transition from K-25 to K-27 reads a little confusing. "upper stages of the plant" would seem to refer to the K-25 from earlier in para...but then we learn about a K-27? Maybe just say, "For the next plant, the K-27, Patterson cancelled the upper stages so it was only 540 units" if that is what happened?
  • Actually there is a 6 stage pilot plant in the discussion as well, which is what "the plant" would refer back to. whole thing is a little confusing to understand. There was a pilot plant, K-25, and then K-27?
  • Just curious...why the numbering that seemed to skip units and the like? And earlier we had Y-12 for instance. What was the rationale for all the alphabet soup? Are some of the missing numbers designs, that got scrapped when they were just doing design engineering?
  • What is a cascade and how are there more and more of them? Is a cascade a group of stages? Maybe simpler just to say as "more and more stages came on line" and skip the cascade concept?
  • what is the rationale for the ordering in which we discuss the 4 different U separation technologies? Just curious.
  • And I guess as a segue, curious for how the site ordering was done? (reads fine, just wonder)

thermal diffusion

edit
  • Image: remove period. Also (honest) I'm not clear in the picture where the S-50 is with word "beyond". Is it that building to the upper left? Or that building that is kinda behind the powerhouse (that we see part of to lower right)? Clarify please with caption or an arrow.
  • Give a little simple description of the physical idea of the method. Like you did with the previous two methods at the beginning of each of them.
  • "His advisers had estimated that it would take six months to build; Groves gave them just four". This reads a little unclear...I guess "his" refers to Groves, or to HK Ferguson? And then Groves gave the deadline to the contractor, not advisors, no? Actually who are these advisors anyway? Groves's staff?
  • Even after reading the second para, I don't have any feel for what the mechanism was. (the other three I can all understand). Clicking through to S-50 article did not help either. I did find this via Google, which gives some better explanation of the process (still not perfect, but better). [1]

Centrifuge

edit
  • If not previously done, may want to wikilink to centrifuge. Just the general article.
  • Also, I totally know how these things work, but perhaps there are some English major types that don't. For parallelism of structure and just general explication, perhaps give a simple technical explanation of mechanism as done for the other two. Basically, I guess it is spinning a fluid makes the heavy stuff go to the outside or words to that effect.
  • Unrelated to the MP article, it is interesting looking at our Wiki page on uranium enrichment, that centrifuges are now the dominant technology (so they eventually figured out the issues). Als that Wiki page has some decent technical explanations.
    • Yes, and that is why it has its own subsection. Other editors kept pressing me for more on the centrifugal method and why it was rejected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • total segue (don't read this, Sandy), but my old man that I told you about with the bomb shipment. That whole story matches up with what you can read in the story of the Indy or the like. And he told it to me. And pretty non-boastful guy. So I beleive it. You will really think I'm fibbing now, but... After he passed, an uncle of mine told me that in 43 or 44, pop was in DC. He had just gotten rejected from USNA for bad eyes (despite being an ensign through some quickie program, he had no college). Anyhoo...he was getting ready to go to the South Pacific, but he stopped by the Navy, got some pretty high level meetings and was pushing the idea that the US should build centrifuges and try to make a bomb out out U-235. (He was, ashamed to admit it, a big SF reader, and the concept of A-bombs was really not that new.) They told him, "no comment, but would you like to stay here and work in a lab, or go to the PAC and earn medals." He chose the war. He was not really surprised when the bombs were dropped...and not just from doing the transshipment to Tinian. (The issue with those islands, was they lacked harbors, so the little amphibs would act as ferries from larger vessels.)TCO (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gun type weapon design

edit
  • I think the org would make more sense if we grouped this in a section on weapons design, construction and testing. Rather than under the Uranium header.
  • " The chain reaction resulting from collision of the "bullet" with the "target" released tremendous energy, producing an explosion, but also blew apart the critical mass and ended the chain reaction."
    • The sentence makes it sound like the bullet slams into the mass of the target, but the image shows more of a male-female connection of shapes.
    • The chain reaction results from the creation of a critical mass (really a critical geometry). The sentence makes it sound like the actual slamming physical impact causes the chain reaction of neutrons. But the causation is firing -> critical mass-geometry -> chain reaction of neutron-caused fission.
    • I understand that the explosion stops the chain reaction (this is the case for any of the bomb methods...once the thing flies apart...critical mass-geometry is lost)...and that this method had this problem more than the others (e.g. implosion with shaped charges). That said, I think combining that concept into the same sentence is just too many concepts at the same time. Would break the thoughts down into 2-3 sentences.
  • Beautiful diagram. remove the caption period.
  • No need to wikilink Little Boy (twice!) in section, given we have a hatnote (very prominent wikilink).
  • Why is Little Boy italicized (and then once not)? Is it considered a ship or something?
  • I would put a para starting at "the configuration of the critical mass"
  • " A poor configuration, or slow assembly," The word assembly in this context is confusing. I think we mean a slow collision or slow mating of the target and bullet. But assembly could mean how the bomb was put together before we fire the gun. I would repeat "collision" or whatever word you use earlier in the discussion.
  • "Oppenheimer concentrated the development effort on the gun-type device, which now only had to work with uranium-235, under Lieutenant Commander A. Francis Birch" This reads confusing. Not sure if there is some time dimension, that the whole project (early) concentrated on the gun? Or that sentence is just telling us Birch was in charge of this part of the project? Also, don't get where the "which only had to work with" came from.

Plutonium

edit
  • feels like we should have a section just on the materials production (reactor and sparation) and then the other sections (thin man, casting, fat man trinity) would all be part of a bomb design and testing section. Also even if we stick with this org, feels funny that separation does not come immediately after production (reactor) section, but we have thin man sticking his nose in the middle.

Reactor design

edit
  • I don't know a better option either, but the linked canning article is not that great either (in that it's a general article on canning food, not a technical explanation of how you weld the seams or whatever it is they do).
  • "milligrams (7.7 gr)" Make units consistent. I would use the same units of amounts as used with uranium discussion earlier. In one spot we said "a few hundred grams", but then later when we summarize overall production it was pounds (kgs). In any case, I would not use grains (?) as a unit. No one uses that much as a general reader. Use ounces even though you will need a decimal.
    •   Done No one has used ounces since the 1970s either, although I still hear the price of gold and silver quoted in them. It seems that precious metals were measured in grains, so the conversion template seems to be holding the moral high ground... Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Feels like we are starting to shift topics at "an air cooled design" towards the next reactors. Para break? Feels like the 6 following clauses (3 long sentences) could stand on their own.
    •   Done
  • Also, I think the discussion about a new rail line means a rail line at Hanford? But clarify for the reader that we have shifted attention away from the locale of the X-10.
  • It's not as big a deal, but I would do another para break at "As at Oak Ridge" and then you have a centralized paragraph on the canning details, which sorta feels like more of a separate "micro-scale" technical topic than "logistical-scale" cost and pounds of steel and height of buidings earlier.
    •   Done
  • "subjected to a series of tests" -> tested. Or conversely, you could expand and tell us what the actual tests were.
  • Would clarify in caption (assuming alt text correct) that the reactor is in the middle. There's also a big thing further back, and since you talked about a tall building in text, wasn't sure if that was the reactor.
  • I like how you started the sentence with a but (serious). You are a very smooth writer.
  • Delink overengineering.
    •   Done
  • Also I would either say overengineering or a waste of time and money (same thing really).
    •   Done
  • Cut "reach the required power level and"
    •   Done
  • "was started on" maybe use a different verb here, as the reader might think started construction. "started producing" or "became operational" or the like.
  • Kind of a general thing, but might want to take a look at your pictures and make sure they are the best. In general, they are pretty darned good, don't get me wrong. You have a variety of types of images (buildings, machines, billboard, homefront girls, diagrams, etc.) I personally find the diagrams of bombs, very helpful. Also, the picture of racetrack and reactor, kinda give a nice feel for how the thing works. Some of the outside of building shots are not as strong. In particular the chemical separation image. And then for thermal...it just looks like a steel mill or power factory or something. For those, maybe a diagram showing how the process worked would be more helpful. I DO however like the shot of the gasseous diffusion...as it shows that reallly all that thing was, was a bunch of shoeboxes.

Separation process

edit
  • Image caption: I would say "A chemical...". Just to clarify that it was not "the". Article text makes that clear.
  • Tell us who Greenewalt is (his job). you mentioned his name and wikilinked him earlier, but now we talk about him as if we know his role. Even looking at the linked article, I can't tell if he was in charge of this aspect, or what?
  • I think you need to give a little simple explanation of the process of separation. We mention that it was a challenge...but then no payoff on what was developed. Mentioning LaF or BiPo4 is just sort of a black box. Googling around, I learned that it involves dissolving the fuel rods into acid and then selectively precipiating the plutonium (while uranium and I guess random fission products) stay in solution. The LaF or BoPO4 are coprecipitants. This [2] explains it some. We have some wiki contente here [3] that we could link someone to. Given that the current Pu separation technology changed in 1949, probably should have a stub just on Pu separation for the MP. Anyhow...honest, just reading your text at first, I thought it might have been some solid state reaction (wasn't sure, wth we were doing...distillation or ion exchange or what). anyhow...makes it clear that it is precipitation separation.
  • Second paragraph should be cut into two or three paras. Lot of pretty dense technical stuff in there.
  • I think we might cut the (221) labels. Don't seem like they add much over just the name, concentration building or whatever.
  • Really a plan level diagram (maybe we can draw one, not trying to put it all on you) would be a little more helpful to follow this discussion.
  • Also, I guess if we understood the steps of the process a little better, it would fit make the building discussion easier. For instance 221 is where we dissolve cores and do first precip, 224 is second disolving and precip. 231 is conversion to oxide and then metal. 213 is storage (I'm making it up, but it's something like that).
  • I don't know for sure (don't know exact details of chemistry and processes), but my impression is that the two processes are really the "same" process in terms of the steps. Just picking a different co-precipitant. So that is why they could build the plant, before they had settled on one or the other. [just at first, I had a real "huh?" factor for how they built a plant when they hadn't selected a process.
  • Delink overhead crane (and consider delinking CCTV and LA)
  • On the image, it is not clear to me, what the 200N and 300 red squares are for. Also, see article talk, but think cropping image and making labels for the red readable (can get someone to do it) would help usage, and cut caption lenght.

weapons design

edit
  1. Where is the Fat man casing? Behind the right-most thin man? Looks like there are several of them, further back too.
  2. (Just asking) is italics instead of using quotes "Thin Man" when referring to the term?
  3. I think you can cut either "inwardly" or "smaller and denser form".
  4. Not needed for FAC, but when I look at that diagram of the implosion device, it has a lot of labelled components (e.g. tamper pusher) that don't get explained. I don't think we want to get that in the weeds in this article, but in file view of the image, or in linked article on devices (or maybe even another stub), it might be nice to have a step by step explanation of what each component is and how they work together. (editted in: Actually you've got every part of the diagram discussed except the tamper. If you added a sentence on it's function and material choice, we'd be set.)
  5. "The accellerated effort..." 10 sentence paragraph with discussion of some pretty technical details. Para break somewherre? Probably at "To study" as then the topic becomes that RayLa thingie.
  6. Was the 140 used for some sort of detection (like an X-ray? I know gamma rays are used in mettallurgy to look for cracks. In essence a gamma ray is an X ray on steroids). Or was it involved in the criticality somehow? (edditted in, OK Wiki article answers my question, they were used like an X-ray. maybe clarify with a phrase or sentence.)
    • Yes. Basically they set off an implosion of an iron sphere with RaLa and watched the damage. A huge amount of contamination was caused, but because RaLa has such a short half-life, everything was soon back to normal.
    • Delink sphere, density, malleable, corrode, and nickel. Maybe curies and alpha particles if used before.
    •   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Trinity

edit

(lost all my comments, edit glitch, I will just copyedit, feel free to change back)

they had a commissary? Army...

Is this first use of fission products?

uc or lc for gadget? differs in photo and text

  • Settled on uc

make both English and metric abbreviated or not (you have it mixed now).

Foreign intel

edit
  1. Rename Intelligence?
  1. Actually...that makes me think. Do we need a SECTION on security? I hear about that a lot in popular books. Perhaps we should discuss who was in charge of it, if there was a general guy for the project. Or was it all site by site? Obviously this was a huge interprise and it would seem like some of the sites would sorta need to know what each other was doing in order to collaborate. Or did they keep it prety compartmentalized? thereis the funny story of the Astounding Saxi bomb. [4] and all the stuff at LA about letters opened and all that.

Preparations

edit
  1. Where would the bomb turrets be? Clarify caption (I don't know how to note what you say to note)

Bombings

edit

Did some copyediting (lot of links repeated from before). Think we don't need the conversion for kilotons (don't even foreigners use that unit in context of explosives? and tons are so similar to metric tons (tonnes) that it is a friendly unit.

  •   Done. Agreed. Given the accuracy it makes no difference. Also, I think Americans do not use the French spelling for metric, so there is often doubt about which one is meant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

After the war

edit
  1. It's a nice section title, but I'm not sure if Wiki wants it more nounish (I'm not sure).
  2. "order to maintain the supply of polonium for the urchin initiators, the oldest unit, B pile, was closed down." How did closing a pile down maintain supply? Sounds funny, did it allow canibalization?
  3. Tanks is a nice cost comparison, but not sure of small arms or explosives. Might be nice to have a comparison to airplanes or ships. We had a 5000 ship Navy...must have cost a lot...
  4. did some delinking and cut one para (wasn't super-long, but two pretty different topics).
  5. Just for discussion (not sure I advocate any change): any idea of a bit more on the follow-on programs (I guess Naval Reactors for one, medical advances, etc.) or just want to leave it with the two turn-overs?
Nice job. I was a little worried that I was pushing you into telling too much of the after-story, but the select content comes across nicely. First, it is so close in time, that the foundations of these programs were occuring during the 46-47 project years. And you were pretty concise. But it is nice to give us some content "meat" that shows that obviously MP led to the entire field of nuclear power and isotopes, rather than just the administrative turnover.
I liked it a little better when you had the paragraphs separate (seem like separate topics). I think only on wiki do people jam paras together that are separate 3-sentence topics (which are perfectly respectable paras). Think it is because the font is so small and they just have a general tendancy to stick sentences together rather than structuring (not you, you are a real historian writer type).
I guess the other thing I'm wondering (not sure exactly) is if the order of paras should be any different. I guess you were going for chronological, but perhaps an implicit segregation of within-MP and turnover/out of MP makes sense. Just feels funny how we jump around and especially with the bombings towards the end. After medicine and such.
It was actually a surprise to me, when you answered above wrt Canada that the program ran to 1947, so I think some stronger explanation/topic sentence in this sentence to just call that out would help reader.TCO (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I have moved a paragraph around. The Post-War section is a bit of a grab bag, and most of the paragraphs cover the entire period. I thinks its clear enough that the project continued until 31 December 1946. However many accounts cease with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki. It speaks in turn of hanford, Sandia, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos, which then leads nicely into talking about the labs, and then the biomedical research. Then comes the naval research, and that in turn flows fairly smoothly into Bikini. Finally, we terminated with the Atomic Energy Act, the passage of which took up most of the year, but which comes last because it terminated the project.
  • I've been gathering material for an article on the Armed Forces Special Waepons Project.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's amazing all you have done so far. The huge, well-organized article and then all the stubs set up. I am thinking of taking tha BiPO4 article and doing a DYK. Or maybe the Ames Process. Just so much to do.
There are a lot of cool topics you could do. SL1, the nuclear airplane, etc. They are not as momentous as the MP, but have that "cool factor" that people would enjoy seeing on the front page.
(squeeky wheel) Cf (it is connected via Seaborg.) It's had a couple chemists look at it already. Historical perspective might be additive to it.TCO (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Costs

edit

1. Would add the 90% of costs for separations in lead as well (first para). In the case that someone does read the lead, it helps ground them on why you go on so much about the materials stuff, rather than all the romantic mesa above Sante Fe.

2. Chart of costs is nice content.

Notes and refs

edit

Did not parse for format, but looks like a good selection.

HAve you read the Cambell book, what did you think?

Interesting trick to throw the portal thingies into the bibliograhy section

Template

edit

Fine. Still thinking a List article on people, might be interesting.

Categories

edit

We might want to add some sciencey ones like nuclear chemistry or atomic physics (mav might know better...I don't know cats really).

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Manhattan_Project/archive1&oldid=437654188"