Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project A119

< 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project A119

edit
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is currently in as good a condition as sourcing will allow. The article passed a GA review with no problems, and has remained stable since. I'm new to the A-class criteria as a whole, but having read them over, I feel this article meets them all. It's not exactly expansive, but due to the confidentiality of its subject, I'm confident that it's exhaustive. I have only added the WP:MILHIST banner to its talk page tonight, however, I feel it's appropriate given that the subject is a United State Air Force project dating from the Cold War - if this isn't the right avenue for review, I do apologise. I should be available most, if not all, nights this week to reply to any concerns. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First of all, I like your nick :) Welcome to MilHist! At first I thought that A119 was a road somewhere in England. Some comments:

  • It is assumed that the purpose of such an act Sounds like WP:WEASELWORDS. Since Ulivi, Harland & Zhou say "its main aim being to send to the Moon, without any warning, a fission atomic bomb to impress the Soviets and their allies". Suggest removing "It is assumed that".
  • in the eyes of the American population Suggest "public" instead of "population", since we are talking politics here.
  • Sputnik was the first artificial satellite in Earth orbit, and the surprise of its successful launch, compounded by the resounding failure of Project Vanguard to launch an American satellite after two separate attempts, sparked the Sputnik crisis and was the impetus for the beginning of the space race. Apart from the fact that the sentence is kind of long and awkward, The Project Vanguard failures occurred as a result of the Sputnik crisis. suggest re-wording.
  • Edward Teller, the "father of the H-bomb", who in February 1957 proposed the detonation of an atomic device some distance from the lunar surface in order to analyze the effects of the explosion. Actually, he proposed detonating both on and above the surface.
  • It was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advantages gained by the Soviets. What advantages gained? Suggest "advances".
  • It was then decided to use a device similar in yield to the Little Boy bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in 1945, No, it wasn't. They decided to use a lightweight W25 (nuclear warhead), a small warhead used by the US and Canada that weighed only about 220 pounds (100 kg) and had a yield of 1.7 KT - only about one-tenth of a Little Boy. Suggesting incorporating this instead, and linking to the W25 article.
  • seemingly out of fear of a possible negative public reaction and the possible risk to the population "possible" sounds weasily, and appears twice in the same sentence. Suggest deleting both.
  • I decided to be WP:BOLD and add the article to Category:Secret military programs.

All in all, an interesting article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look over this. I've made the changes suggested here. I left in a line about the yield of the Hiroshima bomb for size comparison with the W25, though if that seems unnecessary then it could come straight out. GRAPPLE X 14:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the Little Boy yield is not covered by the reference. Added one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Intriguing article, and nice work! I do have a few queries and suggestions for starters:
    • Is it possible to create at least a stub article for Dr. Reiffel? That way there wouldn't be any redlinks in the article.
      • It is okay to have redlinks. SandyGeorgia likes to see them in featured articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "consequences" section, are there any sources, references, etc. that suggest it might have been more favourable had Project A119 been executed, versus the "obscene" comment? (WP:NPOV isn't a straightjacket if all sources are negative, but I'm curious if there's anybody who thought it was a good idea.)
    • 'Possible implications of the nuclear fallout' - can this be expanded upon? Was fallout considered a serious problem even in the low-gravity, atmosphere-less lunar environment?
    • Overall the article's a bit on the short side, but some articles are just that way. Keep up the good work. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a few search results for 'Leonard Reiffel, though none of them mention the project so I'm not 100% sure it's him or not. Probably is though - here and here for instance. I'll try to get an article together tonight but I'm completely green when it comes to BLP material.
    Haven't seen anything positively receptive of the project, to be honest. The reporting on the event seems to have mostly come in one wave after the Nature letters, and concentrated on the seeming absurdity of the idea. I'll have another search in case anything appears to have been favourable since, but to be honest I doubt it, as 21st century opinion on moon-bombing isn't likely to be positive. I do have a source on Reiffel saying "Now it seems ridiculous and unthinkable [...] but things were remarkably tense back then", if that would work as an addition.
    From what I've read, it seems to be more of a fear of contaminating scientific readings, as Reiffel has cited that as a concern from the initial project (here, for instance), and it was raised again in a 1969 proposal. I don't think it was much of an ecological concern like it might be considered now. GRAPPLE X 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have created a stub for Leonard Reiffel using the sources I was able to find. GRAPPLE X 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice. My only quibble would be I'd like to see a picture of the moon in the article (preferably one relevant, not sure how...), but that won't stop me from declaring Support. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could crop a new image based on this one from commons, as the light/dark sides of the moon would illustrate the terminator which was the target. Would that work as an image? GRAPPLE X 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might also work better. GRAPPLE X 01:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That second one would work nicely, I think, assuming there aren't any actual shots of the planned impact point. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there had been an agreed-upon co-ordinate, so anywhere along what would have been the location of the terminator line at the time of impact would be suitably representative, I think. I'll add the second image now. GRAPPLE X 01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have done so, here. GRAPPLE X 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Hi Grapple, I hope you remember me (Airbus A330). Anyway, I'd like to see some alt text in the images. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do indeed (wish I'd managed a better job for you...). I've added alt text to the images now. GRAPPLE X 23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a diff for handiness' sake. GRAPPLE X 03:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Suggestions:
    • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation throughout the article: "the moon", but then later "the Moon";
    • this abbreviation should probably be formally introduced: "the US Air Force vetoed" (in the lead you could add: "the United States Air Force (US Air Force) with..." Then the abbreviation can be used consistenty;
    • the "DARPA" and "NASA" abbreviations might similarly need to be formally introduced (although I believe I have heard some arguments that NASA doesn't - not sure I agree, but I'm prepared to defer to that if others feel this way)
    • please check for English variation consistency. I found "over 375,000 kilometres (233,000 miles)" which is British English ("kilometres");
    • there is some overlinking of terms, for example "Illinois Institute of Technology". AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've caught everything you've addressed. The British English spelling I hadn't noticed as it was the default output of {{Convert}}, I found a parameter which now spits out US spelling for it. I just changed the sole use of "US Air Force" back to "United States Air Force" as I felt an aside explaining that US was a contraction of United States seemed a bit too far, so now the need for it is avoided entirely. The other two acronyms are presented in full at their first use followed by a bracketed use of the acronym; the capitalisation of Moon is now consistent, and I nabbed that second IIT link. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Nice article but a few things to consider:

  • Prose -- copyedited a little but some questions:
    • ...where it would be detonated on impact -- Was it to be self-detonating upon striking the Moon's surface? In that case this should say "it would detonate on impact", otherwise it sounds like detonation is being controlled from Earth.
    • Cancellation / canceled -- I know the latter (with one "l") is correct Americanese; not the same for the former?
    • ...a freedom of information request was lodged -- Passive; can we say who launched it?
    • A STUDY OF LUNAR RESEARCH FLIGHTS, VOLUME I – I think MOS demands this to be in title case even if it’s capitalised in the source
  • Detail / structure / supporting materials – These look good
  • References / spotchecks – Generally good and no obvious instances of close paraphrasing; however in citation#13, while it accurately reports on the impact re. other scientific investigations, it doesn’t mention that violating the test bans was a consideration.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the spelling and casing issues. As for your first point, I've actually lost access to the main source used there (the book Lunar Exploration: Human Pioneers and Robotic Surveyors. I think you're right in that "it would detonate on impact" is the more plausible wording, so I'll change it to that - but I'm not 100% sure right now if that's the case (just 99.999%). I've omitted the clause about violating the test ban treaties - I hadn't intended for the hook to support that, as earlier mention of the treaties had supported that such an action would violate them, which made the latter clause somewhat redundant anyway. Thanks for your copy-editing, too! GRAPPLE X 00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with all that. I'm assuming we don't know who launched the FOI action; if not, can't be helped -- good work in any case! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, missed that one. No, unfortunately not. It's just evident that it has happened, but I haven't been able to find out who is behind it. I assumed it was a reader of one of the Nature letters. GRAPPLE X 00:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Project_A119&oldid=1028519237"