Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Hurricane/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2019 [1].
Operation Hurricane[edit]
This article is about Britain's first nuclear test, which was conducted in Western Australia in 1952. Britain became the third nuclear power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]
I'll do this one tomrrow but could tell me which English you use for the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not a specialist in Australian English so please correct me if I'm wrong.
- as little as 1 to 10 kilograms (2.2 to 22.0 lb) would is kilograms an Australian English word? Also the nought at the "22.0" isn't necessary.
- Vice Admiral Edward Evans-Lombe. It held its first meeting in May 1951. Hm the Britons use Vice-Admiral instead of Vice Admiral so do you Australians also use Vice-Admiral or just Vice Admiral?
- The yield was estimated at 25 kilotons of TNT (100 TJ). Shouldn't kilotons be kilotonnes?
- participants of the British nuclear testing program I saw that you used two kinda "program" one is British (programme) and the other one is American (program) which one do you Australians use?
- which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. which kinda tone do you mean? Long, short or tonne?
- When you're waving your arms around and talking about thousands, it doesn't matter. Bur I have replaced with "tonnes" for consistency.
- This included two 25-ton bulldozers same as above which kinda tons do you mean?
- Unlink Marshall Islands.
- the Robert A. Lovett, the Deputy Secretary of Defense "American Defense"
- Can you link Hermite Island, Trimouille Island, Alpha Island and Northwest Island?
- When queried by a Labour Party backbencher, Emrys Hughes suggest to add British between a and Labour.
- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[96][87] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
- their wooden bottoms were easily holed by coral outcrops.[86][85] Same as above.
- and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth.[90][72]
- I'm not sure but shouldn't the metric be first and then Imeprial/US style of measurement. Because it took place in Australia. I mean I don't mind if you use Imperial/US style of measurement instead of metric because it is about British history.
- a grader, tip trucks, portable generators, 1,800-litre (400 imp gal) water tanks Just let you know that Americans have their own gal style just let you know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, my last comment hasn't be addresed in the last three weeks could you be kindly to adress my last commen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:MEASUREMENT: Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses ... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units... In this case, the source unit was imperial gallons, and the conversion is to metric, which is the primary throughout the article. Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate. So I must have imperial gallons (as the original quantity) and put litres first, but I cannot flip the order and give two conversions. Since a conversion to US gallons is purely optional, and its appropriateness is questionable, it has been omitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, my last comment hasn't be addresed in the last three weeks could you be kindly to adress my last commen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, went to Washington, DC, to confer "Washington, DC" --> "Washington, D.C."
- Air Vice Marshal E. D. Davis, arrived in Sydney on 1 November 1950 Unlink Sydney.
- Last comment the Australian government formally agreed in May 1951.[51][40] suggest ordering the refs numerically here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- CPA-5, can you let us know your thoughts following Hawkeye's changes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Support by PM[edit]
I reviewed this at GAN, then again at Milhist ACR in 2017. I had little to nitpick about it then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Op_hurricane.jpg: per the template, please provide details of first publication. Same with File:Cleament_Attlee_and_Doc_Evatt.jpg, File:HMAS_Karangi.jpg, File:Operation_Hurricane_cloud.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources review[edit]
- Spotchecks not carried out
- Formatting
- Ref 72: the source is not described in the citation. The report should be named, together with its publisher
- Ref 110: Not properly formatted, and retrieval date missing
- Links: All links to sources are working
- Quality and reliability: Ref 93. The Mirror is a red-top tabloid – is that the best source we can find?
Subject to these minor points the sources appear to meet the required standards of presentation, quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley[edit]
- "Operation Hurricane was the test of the first UK atomic device". As there were more tests it should be "Operation Hurricane was the first test of the first UK atomic device"
- No change needed, but am I correct in thinking that an implosion device consists of a non-critical mass of plutonium surrounded by a conventional (or uranium) explosive which compresses the plutonium to bring it to criticality?
- Yes, that's right. Shaped charge explosive lenses compress or reshape the core to achieve super-criticality. The core can be surrounded by a tamper, which has the function of containing the explosion for a few microseconds, thereby increasing the yield. Lead was used in the Hurricane device, but the production model used depleted uranium, which further increased the yield through fission reactions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Aldermaston is linked to the article about the town. Should it not be Atomic Weapons Establishment?
- "The three leaders agreed that there would be full and effective cooperation on atomic energy" I would take atomic energy to mean civil uses, but presumably you mean nuclear?
- "Atomic" and "Nuclear" and are interchangeable in this context. The former was preferred in the 1940s and 1950s, but the scientists always preferred the latter, and it has since become more common. Both civil and military use is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think adding "civil and military" would make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Atomic" and "Nuclear" and are interchangeable in this context. The former was preferred in the 1940s and 1950s, but the scientists always preferred the latter, and it has since become more common. Both civil and military use is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Such data would complement that obtained about an underwater explosion by the American Operation Crossroads nuclear test in 1946, and would therefore be of value to the Americans." Why was the value to the Americans a consideration when they were refusing cooperation? Ditto about "for fear that it might jeopardise its far more important relationship with the United States". As you have said that the Americans had refused Pacific Proving Grounds, you should say that they were still considering requests to use other sites.
- The Americans were not considering other sites; the British were. The value to the Americans was a consideration as one of the objectives of the British nuclear weapons program was the re-establishment of the Special Relationship with the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- You say at the end that re-establishment of the Special Relationship was one of the aims but saying it earlier would explain the repeated references to not upsetting the Americans. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Americans were not considering other sites; the British were. The value to the Americans was a consideration as one of the objectives of the British nuclear weapons program was the re-establishment of the Special Relationship with the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- "while negotiations with the United States site were ongoing" Negotiations with a site?
- "Canadian scientists and technicians would have access to all technical data, but Australians would not." Because Australia had not signed up to the Modus Vivendi? Did they complain?
- "Under the new act, everything within a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius of Flag Island was declared a prohibited area." Things a prohibited area? Also this is the only mention of Flag Island.
- Have you got a better wording? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would delete "everything within" and say "a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius around Flag Island was declared a prohibited area". But why Flag Island? You have not mentioned it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Probably because it was small and central. I have marked it on the map though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- The map is very helpful but it could do with a scale. Presumably HMS Plym marks where the bomb exploded? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Probably because it was small and central. I have marked it on the map though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would delete "everything within" and say "a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius around Flag Island was declared a prohibited area". But why Flag Island? You have not mentioned it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Have you got a better wording? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- "British Blue Danube design". You mention this in the summary but I think it should also be in the main text.
- "As successful as it was, Operation Hurricane fell short on both counts." Why did it fail on independence - because the technology was too dated to be useful? This should be clarified.
- Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - but the map needs a scale. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.