Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Grapple/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2021 [1].
Operation Grapple edit
This article is about the British nuclear tests in the Pacific, where the first British thermonuclear devices were detonated. It is part of the Good Topic on British nuclear weapons. If successful, it will be the twelfth article in the topic to achieve featured status, and the whole topic will become featured. It wasn't my first choice for a FAC nomination, but I do think it is a worthy and interesting article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Image licensing looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are some sections such as Grapple Z series, Grapple Series, and especially Preparations that are very long, harming readability. I would advise splitting into smaller subsections. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tkbrett
edit
I'm generally not a contributor to military history articles, but I'm a big fan of your work, so I'll give this one a go. Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone as far as the end of the Preparations section and will carry on tomorrow. Thoughts so far: the prose is fantastic; there's nothing unnecessarily ostentatious and it is exceedingly readable. That said, I think that adding subsections to the Preparations section would greatly improve readability given its length.
- In July 1954, the Cabinet decided to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is somewhat implied by the last sentence of the previous paragraph, but I think it would be helpful to add why the Cabinet felt it necessary to proceed with an H bomb.
- I think tamper can be piped to neutron reflector.
- I should have a go at rewriting those articles. Last time I got only as far as revising the section on the Discovery of nuclear fission, which I made into a separate article. The tamper is not a neutron reflector. Its main role is to hold the core together for a shake or two longer thereby increasing the yield. By using a depleted uranium tamper which fissions from fast neutrons, the tamper also increases the yield that way too. About 30% of the yield of the Fat Man bomb used at Nagasaki came from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Truman, Attlee and Eden aren't introduced or linked to.
- The bombs would be detonated with a clockwork timer rather than a barometric switch. This meant that they had to be dropped from 45,000 feet (14,000 m).: I'm not clear on the connection here. Why does the use of a clockwork timer mean they had to be dropped from 45,000'?
- A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
- g ≈ 10 m/s2, so we have
-
- Ah, understood.
-
- Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
- A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can Taylor instability be piped to Rayleigh–Taylor instability?
I've looked through this article quite carefully again but I haven't found any obvious areas for improvement. This is a very well written and well researched article. Despite its technical nature it manages to convey information to the non-expert without any dumbing-down of content. For these reasons I'm happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Valereee edit
- The lead sentence reads Operation Grapple was a set of four British nuclear weapons test series...the combination of set and series stopped me. It's a set of a series rather than a series of tests or a set of four series of tests? —valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the lead, second para: "The designs had to be tested to demonstrate that they worked." This is the sentence in the lead that actually tells us: here's what this whole article is about. Should we use the term Operation Grapple in this sentence? Like, "Operation Grapple was the program to test these designs to demonstrate that they worked" or something?
- Maybe links on first TJ and PJ?
- Added a link. MOS:UNITNAMES: Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I had assumed that the units were familiar since joules are on your gas bill. Mine tells me that I use 7,500 MJ per year. So a hydrogen bomb produces enough energy to heat my house for a million years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- You look at your gas bill? :D I recognize joule, and assumed these were multiples of that, but I didn't recognize TJ and PJ as abbreviations. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what a "blind radar test drop" is/means. Is there something it could be linked to?
- Alas not. It just means using the radar bomb sight instead of the optical one. The closest we have is H2S (radar), but the Mark 7 was used in Operation Grapple. Blind bombing links to Oboe, which is not what we want. Maybe Maury Markowitz has a suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Back from vaykay. This normally refers to H2S. "blind bombing" is a generic term for all sorts of technologies, and using H2S is one example among many. But blind radar really limits you to H2S for the UK. That said, "blind bombing" should absolutely not link to Oboe! Now I call attention to "Once in the air, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter. Grandy then authorised a visual drop." This may be referring to Oboe, or a similar technology. Not worth holding up for, but seems to deserve further research in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Valereee, don't feel pressured to support (or oppose) outright if you've only focussed on a particular aspect of the article. The coords read reviewer comments, not just the bolded declarations of support or opposition, so what you've contributed is useful no matter what. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt edit
- "and the restoration of the nuclear Special Relationship with the United States with the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement." with/with. Can this be rephrased to avoid?
- "Temperatures are high, averaging 88 °F (31 °C) during the day and 78 °F (26 °C) at night, and humidity is very high, usually around 98 per cent." Why the present tense given that the rest of the passage is in the past tense and you're relying on a 1960 source?
- "Air Commodore Wilfrid Oulton was appointed task force commander on 6 February 1956,[41][20]" refs out of order. Is this intended?
- " the Panama Canal, passing through the narrowest locks with just inches to spare." All the locks of the original Panama Canal were and are, as far as I can tell from a google search (and my own knowledge, having passed through on cruise ships several times) the same size. Does your source say otherwise?
- " It was ultimately joined by four more RFAs, Fort Constantine, Gold Ranger, Fort Rosalie, Wave Prince and Salvictor.[52]" But you list five ships.
- " the Republic of Fiji Military Forces." Fiji was not independent until 1970 nor a republic until 1987. Were these forces called that then?
- "the tests were denounced as a hoax intended to deceive the Americans into resuming nuclear cooperation;" This is a bit unclear. Denounced when? And by whom?
- In the 1990s. Added some names, but they don't have articles. The London Review of Books article is in the sources. One thing I've discovered over the years is that by adding retrospect, it is often possible to reconstruct events in a form that makes more sense than what actually happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fijian Navy our article on same says that it was not formed until 1975.
- "nightly radio programs" Should this be "programmes" if this is British English?
- "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, who gave verbal approval, and a handful of officials.[120]" This would be Macmillan, but you do not say so (the last UK PM referred to is Eden) and when you finally refer to Macmillan, you do not link or say who he is.
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Dumelow edit
Hi Hawkeye7, It's been a long time since I studied any nuclear physics but I've taken a non-technical read through and make the following comments on the prose. I've only got down to "Grapple series" so far but will complete the review later - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Background
- "In November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike, the first successful test of a true thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb. Britain was therefore still several years behind in nuclear weapons technology", this suggests to the reader that thermonuclear devices were more modern or desirable but not why. Maybe "more powerful" or something would help here?
- "A Cabinet meeting 27 July accepted this argument, and directed the Lord President to proceed with the development of thermonuclear weapons." missing "on" before date
- "The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire was directed by William Penney, with William Cook as his deputy." The article for the AWE states it was known as the "Atomic Weapons Research Establishment" until 1987
- Location
- "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956" the only British weapon you've previously described as boosted is Orange Herald, but presumably this wasn't tested this early. What weapon was tested? Or was it non-detonation testing?
- The tests involved detonations. Orange Herald was a boosted weapon, but the important point was that it had an oraalloy tamper. Re-worded to clarify this.
- Also: "This was a sensitive matter; there was an agreement with Australia that no thermonuclear testing would be carried out there" You've previously only described Green Bamboo and Green Granite as thermonuclear and neither of these were tested until much later.
- "which was larger than the 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) limit on tests in Australia" this is presumably a different limit to the 2.5x Hurricane limit you mention in the previous sentence, as this would be 62.5 kilotonnes?
- Preparations
- "HMS Narvik would reprise the role of control ship it had in Hurricane; but it was also required for Mosaic, and had very little time to return to the Chatham Dockyard for a refit before heading out to Christmas Island for Grapple" Would "it had also been required for Mosaic" be better, as this was a past event?
- RFA Fort Constantine, HMS Messina seem to be plausible redlinks. Potentially J. E. S. Stone also (he only reached brigadier but was a CBE)
- "Narvik would have to spend long periods of time at Malden," I don't think we've said Malden was to be the site of the bomb test yet, last time it was mentioned it was still a toss up between it and McKean.
- "By the end of April, 31 of the men, and all the women and children had been taken to Fanning Island by RAF Hastings" you've only mentioned the full name of the aircraft in a caption previously so I missed it and was momentarily confused, perhaps expand to Handley Page Hastings and link?
- Grapple series
- "The yield was a very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ), even less than Short Granite." We've previously stated that the Short Granite test was also 300 kilotonnes so either there's a rounding issue or it should be "about the same as Short Granite"?
- "chalked up" strikes me as a bit colloquial
- "sports such as soccer" football in British English, never soccer. If absolutely necessary (I don't think so in this case as a misunderstanding is not going to change anything important) "association football".
- Grapple X
- "Rear Admiral Patrick from the US Navy, and Brigadier General John W. White from the USAF" Do we know Patrick's first name? Also probably both redlinkable
- Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Created a new article on White at John W. White (general) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Goldsborough Serpell Patrick. He already has an article. Red-linked White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple Z Series
- I don't think the location of the Pendant and Burgee tests are not explicitly stated, were they above Christmas Island itself? Likewise locations of Flagpole and Halliard, which were presumably somewhere off the coast?
- "This was the first live drop of a British nuclear weapon using blind radar technique" I am not sure I understand this bit. Does it mean it was aimed by radar alone?
- Aftermath
- "The British decided to adapt the Mark 28 as a British weapon as a cheaper alternative to doing their own development, which became Red Snow." Link Mark 28 to B28 nuclear bomb
- "Other weapons were supplied through Project E, under which weapons in American custody were supplied for the use of the RAF and British Army." Repetition of "supplied" maybe replace the second one with "provided" or similar?
- " Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium was sent to the US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium between 1960 and 1979, replacing production of the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire, although much of the highly enriched uranium was used not for weapons, but as fuel for the growing UK fleet of nuclear submarines." Feels like a very long sentence
Support on prose. One follow up question: you say the 1960-79 supply of American enriched Uranium "replaced production from the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire". Capenhurst is still producing to this day (I think), for power station use, was it not producing anything in this period or just not for nuclear weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- It produces enriched uranium for power stations but no longer the highly enriched uranium used for weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion. (Hill, An Atomic Empire, p. 99) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources review edit
All paras have at least one citation at the end, and the article is closely cited throughout, there are no formatting issues, with one exception (see below) all necessary ref fields are there to enable verification, the sources all look reliable to me except fn 62 and 63 (given what they are citing is very mundane orbat information, I think they can be given a pass), and the MA dissertation mentioned below. The only outstanding queries are:
- The London Review of Books cite (Dombey and Grove) uses page numbers, but the linked online version doesn't have page numbers, thus there should probably be an issn for the hard copy referred to.
- Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, McIntyre's MA dissertation is questionable. Has it been shown to have had significant scholarly influence? If not, it is probably not reliable.
- Pringle's Guardian article is used as a ref, so should be dropped from the EL list.
That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- All good then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments Support from Z1720
edit
I love history, though not well read in military history. Consider me a non-expert.
- There's a lot of fascinating reading to be had in reviewing Wikipedia articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- "They were part of New Zealand" -> "The islands were" or "The Kermadec Islands were" Since it's the beginning of a paragraph, it is better to specify what is being talked about.
- "Cook would be the Scientific Director." I think per MOS:JOBTITLE this would be scientific director (no capitals.)
- "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ). But it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." The second sentence is awkward for me. Perhaps, "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ), but it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." (change the period before "but" to a comma)
- "The physicists at Aldermaston had plenty of ideas about how to follow up Grapple X. Possibilities were discussed in September 1957." I would merge these sentences by saying "about how to follow up Grapple X and possibilities were discussed"
- "of a three-layer Dick that used lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7), but more of it, " -> "of a three-layer Dick that used a greater amount of lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7)," ?
- "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." Too many commas that ruin the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The possibility of a moratorium of testing caused the plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, to be restricted to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." I'm still not thrilled with the amount of commas in my suggestion, but it's better imo.
- "Once in the air, though, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter." remove though to increase sentence flow?
- "British timing was good." This feels like editorialising. Who was it good for? Also, it's a weird way to start this paragraph. I would delete and explain why the timing was good later in the paragraph.
- "Now, suddenly, there was incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead." -> "This gave incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead in..." This gets rid of some commas. Also, what were the Soviet Union ahead in?
- "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis." -> "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend their relationship, which had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis."
- "Malden Island is uninhabited. Penrhyn Island is part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand." These are awkward because the paragraph starts in past-tense, then switches to present-tense without a lead-in. Perhaps, ""Penrhyn Island remained part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand. Malden Island remains uninhabited."
- "and paid for by a veterans' organisation[160] in New Zealand" Can the citation go after New Zealand?
- "However, in another test done by the same Massey University team, for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes, the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this, non-germline abnormality, was found." -> "The same Massey University team did another test for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes and the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this non-germline abnormality was found." Again, trying to delete some commas for flow.
- In ref 164, since you have places academic journals in the "References" section, this ref should also be a sfn with the longer text placed in references.
- The ISBN for "Macmillan, Harold (1971)" needs dashes to be consistent with the other sources.
- Why is the pdf in "Further reading" not used as a source in the article?
- WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
- WP:Further reading: Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate Fortunately my own Masters thesis is considered reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Support from TRM edit
Lead
- "of thermonuclear weapons," hydrogen bomb already links to this.
- "a nuclear weapons project" atomic bomb already links to this.
- "scientists participated in the British contribution to the Manhattan Project" -> "scientists contributed to the Manhattan Project" to avoid repeat of British.
- "The successful test ... in the meantime" mega-sentence needs split.
- "Cabinet agreed" may not be understandable and we call it "the Cabinet".
- "The first test in the Operation Grapple series" The first test ... you've literally only just mentioned Op Grapple so don't do it again.
- "Despite its failure" well it only failed one aspect, the yield, so perhaps just "Despite this..."
- "a disappointing 300 kilotonnes" keep "disappointing" out of the lead, it's POV.
- "series was required. This series consisted" merge.
- "300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ)" yet "1.8 megatonnes" is equivalent to 7.5 PJ? Why not 7.8 PJ?
- "single test, Grapple Y, in April 1958, another design was tested" test tested... repetitive.
- What's a "tamper"?
- Enough is enough. I've created a new stub article, Tamper (nuclear weapons), and linked to that. Added a short explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "what they were doing" reads like a tabloid.
- "a blind radar test drop" what is that?
Background
- General question: You use Britain (not Great Britain) and United Kingdom interchangeably. Is that correct? They're not the same thing.
- "September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement" no link/article?
- It has no article, being too small. Instead we have Quebec Agreement#Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire but the Quebec Agreement is already linked. Let me know if you think the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire should also be linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Britain's top scientists participated in the British" see comment about this in the lead.
- "The United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 " United States doesn't appear to be part of the formal title of the act.
- "extraordinary scientific and technological achievement" in what sense and according to whom?
- "lithium-6 deuteride" no link?
- "thermonuclear design in which the thermonuclear fuel was separate and the majority of the yield came from thermonuclear burning" do we need three thermonuclear in one sentence?
- Fission isn't linked here.
More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Location
- "boossting" typo.
- "the yield of the" yield has already been mentioned in this para but not linked.
- "Menzies cabled his" what does that mean (particularly to people below the age of 40)?
- " No 240" -> "No. 240"
- Full stop is not used when it ends with the correct letter. British usage favours omitting the full stop in abbreviations which include the first and last letters of a single word (WP:SNODGRASS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since when has "number" ended with an o? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's Latin: "numero". See numero sign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- And see your own ref 45... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since when has "number" ended with an o? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Full stop is not used when it ends with the correct letter. British usage favours omitting the full stop in abbreviations which include the first and last letters of a single word (WP:SNODGRASS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found MOS:NUMERO, so changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Christmas Island" - you called it Kiritimati in the lead.
- " A USAF special " it's not until much later in the article that you expand this and link it.
- "based here" there.
Preparations
- "bomber squadrons" you've used bomber before this without linking.
- "nos." needs full stop for abbreviation.
- Similarly No 49 should be No. 49.
- Fix all those throughout, won't mention it again.
- "four Whirlwind helicopters, along with two RAF Whirlwinds " were the first four not RAF ones?
- "Damage caused by a storm" to what?
- "Narvik would reprise the" Narvik reprised the"
- "Fort Beauharnois" what sort of ship was that? RFA is just a fleet of ships.
- "with special radio equipment" what made it "special"?
- "there because of the steep grade of the ocean floor there" there there
- "to Chatham Dockyard, where" overlinked.
- "a DUKW.[59]" needs explanation.
- "facilities would be improved" were
- "1 December 1956" non-breaking spaces for dates, this one breaks between 1 and December for me.
- "48, 59 and 61 Field Squadrons, and 63 Field Park Squadron, and 12 and 73" none of these have articles/links/are notable enough?
- None have articles, and units of this size are not presumed notable, although plenty of them do. See Category:Squadrons of the Royal Engineers
- Isn't 25 Engineer Regiment the same as 25 (Close Support) Engineer Group?
- No. The 25th Engineer Regiment was disbanded in 2012. Oddly, it has an article on Wikia [2]
- " to Fanning island in" even though that redirects, shouldn't it still be Fanning Island?
- "Royal Engineers construct the airfield runway" that's a complete sentence so full stop.
- "a United States Air Force (USAF) base in the " see above about usage/linking/explanation first time round.
- "also operated DUKWs, amphibious" overlinked and explained too late...
- "tinkering" feels colloquial.
- Any decent link for "frozen" in the context of product design lifecycle?
- The closest I can find is Freeze (software engineering). It describes the process in question very well, but looks odd in the context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Grapple series
- "of three shots. " shots sounds odd when we're talking about dropping bombs.
- "This meant that they had to be dropped" why? to avoid destroying the aircraft?
- That could not happen with a timer. Added "in order to detonate at the correct altitude"
- "minor modification to its Dick" no action, but great sentence.
- "Despite its failure, the test was..." is this with reference to the first test, it's somewhat got lost. And note comment above, this wasn't a failure, it just failed to meet the expected yield, the rest of the test went successfully.
- "John Bayliss" who?
- "by Roberts. XD823, piloted" could merge, these are both very short.
- "This made it technically a megaton-range weapon" is there an explanation for this?
- "flabbergasted" emotive, POV.
Grapple X
- "This required another major construction effort..." this sentence repeats Christmas Island and construct...
- Still lots of No without a full stop. I don't know why they're being piped out, No. 49 Squadron RAF for example.
- "14 layers in Short Granite, it would have just three" MOSNUM, fourteen/three or 14/3.
- "A third Round, Round C, was produced, which was a diagnostic round." -> "A third, diagnostic round, Round C, was also produced"?
Grapple Y
- "One was to tinker with" tinker is too colloquial.
- "Taylor instability" this is the second time poor old "Rayleigh–Taylor instability," Rayleigh got dropped...
- "was the one adopted" no need for "the one"
- 2 = 8.4, 3 = 13? Again, some inconsistent roundings.
Grapple Z series
- "using tritium gas" link?
- "the RI effect. " no article?
- "a primary immune" primary what?
- "approved two shots" again, sounds weird, these aren't "shot", they're dropped.
- "lithium hydride" link.
- "using blind radar technique" what is that?
Aftermath
- "This came as a tremendous shock" what, the British test or Sputnik? It's unclear.
- "the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy" perhaps clarify this was an American committee.
- "as a British weapon" do we need British again?
- "5.4 tonnes" convert as you have with all other such values.
- "7.5 tonnes" ditto.
- "two British veterans of.." veteran is used three times in one sentence here.
- "for £100,000 damages" convert to US$ as you have with the Fiji $ later.
- "the UK Ministry of Defence by" drop UK.
Summary
- What are blanks in the "device" column?
- I may be being dense but what is the 3m+ in every single elevation + height box? Wouldn't it be neater to just have a note to say all were dropped over an elevation of 3m and stick to the height of the drop here?
- The names like Z3 and Z4 are mentioned in this table for the first time, they're nowhere to be seen in the prose.
- "the Short Granite device" why italics?
Refs
- Canberra Times is linked multiple times but not Independent, Guardian etc, what's the strategy?
- Ref 103 missing publication date.
- Ref 149 missing publication date.
- Ref 158 what makes this a high quality reliable source?
- Ref 175, why is ABC in italics?
External links
- Are ten external links necessary? I get some link out to photos but surely if the others have relevant material, they should be incorporated directly into the article with inline refs?
That's it, a really interesting read, nice work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TRM, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TRM. In passing, that is a really good review above. I will be looking to close this in a couple of days, so if there is any follow up to come, or a support or oppose, it would be good to chip it in sooner rather than later. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Happy to support, I read through most of it again a couple of days ago but didn't quite finish up. Done that now. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.