Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tube Alloys

< 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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tube Alloys

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tube Alloys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The British wartime nuclear weapons project Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As with High Explosive Research, Tube Alloys has just been GA promoted so it is difficult to find much in the way of suggestive comments that don't amount to nit-picking. But, to nit-pick:
  • Alt-tags might be desirable for the images.
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Post-War I think "The Special Relationship" could be "the Special Relationship".
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also under Post-War, this sentence seems to contain an incomplete paranthetical expression: "In April 1950 an abandoned Second World War airfield, RAF Aldermaston in Berkshire was selected as the permanent home for what became the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE)". I think there may need to be a common after "Berkshire".
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping with the Special Relationship, this term is wikilinked three times in the article, while MOS:DUPLINK would suggest it should only appear once after the lede. (IOW, it might be appropriate to cull the final wikilink to the Special Relationship.)
    The duplicate link checker doesn't find anything. "Special Realtionship" is linked only in the lead and the Post-War paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These things aside, this is a great article! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suport, mostly nitpicks. This another excellent article:

  • While it recommended that while a pilot separation plant be built in Britain, the production facility should be built in Canada. Is the second "while" a typo?
    checkY Just me fumbing for the right wording. Deleted the first "while". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly there was no majority agreement upon to move forward with it
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreement that “ordinary” gaseous diffusion straight quotes per the MoS
     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • per diem of uranium-235 why use the Latin if it's not necessary?
    English grammar. "Per" being Latin should be followed by the Latin word, if there is one. eg per cent, per diem, per annum. If there isn't, then there is no proposition eg per kilometre, per battalion Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • would cost about £5,000,000 To build? To run (per day/month/year)?
    checkY To build. He estimated that it would cost £1,500,000 per year to run, in which time it would consume £2,000,000 of uranium and other raw materials. Added. The estimate was way out by the way; the Capenhurst plant cost £14,000,000 to build. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was only a minor setback due to the fact that Maybe I'm just a snob but I really hate the construction "due to the fact that", perhaps due to the fact that (winces!) it uses four words where one will do.
    checkY Oh very well then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very early experiments were carried out by Is there an easy way to re-phrase that in the active voice?
    checkY I can try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • plutonium bomb would lead to proposed premature detonations proposed premature detonations?
    checkY Stray word. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • he wanted to make sure that the relationship between the United States and Great Britain the links to the countries seem unnecessary but regardless the GB article is about the island rather than the country
    checkY Removed. I am constantly getting rid of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the name "Tube Alloys"? Does it mean something? Was it chosen for a reason? Or would any suitably obscure title do?
    The article says: Anderson and Akers came up with the name Tube Alloys. It was deliberately chosen to be meaningless, "with a specious air of probability about it" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Comfortably meets the A-class criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder

edit

Leaning heavily towards support at the moment.

The MAID committee.
Isotopic separation
Quebec agreement

Done to the end of the Quebec agreement: more to follow soon. – The Bounder (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Tube_Alloys&oldid=1075714287"