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) 05:51, 31 January 2018 [1].

K-25[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the Manhattan Project. This one is about the gaseous diffusion project, codenamed K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

For the gaseous diffusion process diagram, suggest including a legend in the caption
File:Gaseous_diffusion_process.jpg: not seeing this attribution in the given source, is it elsewhere in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole book is in the public domain, being produced by the Department of Energy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The listed publisher is Penn State - is there a notice somewhere that it falls under the DoE PD default? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On pp. ix-x. The DOE have it for download on its web page. [2] OSTI says it is a "Comprehensive official history produced by the History Division, now the Office of History and Heritage Resources, of the Department of Energy" and lists the Atomic Energy Commission as the publisher. [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Ref 23: minor page range format inconsistency
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 31: requires publisher information
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 102: the link doesn't seem to be working - I'm getting repeated timeouts
Hmmm. Me too. Added archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 105: "Oak Ridge Today" is the name of the publishing website, not the title of the source article which appears to be "DOE, UCOR demolish last piece of K-25, once the world’s largest building".
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 108: is "The Oak Ridger" a print source? If not, it shouldn't be in italics
It's a newspaper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 109: publisher given as "United States Department of Energy", while other references to the same source give it as "Department of Energy". There should be consistency.
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only found a couple of minor nit-picks to point out, not counting a couple of source formatting issues that Brianboulton caught. It's a good read.

~~Construction: I see J.A. Jones and J. A. Jones in this section. Pick one and stick with it; the latter usage is my personal preference.~~
The problem here is that MOS:INITIALS says that "An initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space" but the corresponding article is not so named. Added a redirect to make the usage consistent in this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Other buildings: "bottled and stored fluorine. Fluorine...". Try not to repeat the same word from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this, as it comes off repetitive.~~
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Science isn't my department, but the article seemed clear enough to me and I think it meets FA standards. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM I'm not across the science, so am taking that as read. Not much to nitpick:

What I find interesting is that if I had been asked to design a method of isotope separation, I would have first thought of electromagnetic, and then centrifugal. But the scientists of the day thought first of thermal, and then of gaseous diffusion, harking back to 19th century physics. (I also thought that every reader would look at the number 1.0043 and then reach for their calculator to figure out how many stages are theoretically required in a perfect barrier system. But it could just be me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be moved to K-25 (Manhattan Project) per talk, although I recognise that this might need to happen after promotion to maintain the candidate page links
I was hoping someone else would do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest SAM in the lead should be Special Alloyed Materials
Done. It redirects to this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest mentioning that the Einstein-Szilard letter was sent to Roosevelt
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Organization, the Manhattan District is mentioned, but not properly introduced. It then becomes Manhattan Project without explanation. Suggest adding a para on the genesis of the Manhattan District/Project at an appropriate chronological point in the narrative
Added a line explaining that the Manhattan District was the Army component of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "so that the Manhattan Project"
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"or leaking oil"?
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima" could do with some trimming of atomic?
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by CPA-5

Please put how much IBS is in a 10 kg, 2.45 kg and 3.6.
Done, but it's unlikely that this will help anyone, as the US conventional unit for fissile materials is kg. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know but if there are International System of Units then there have to be United States customary units too also can you put how much ibs "A kilogram a day of product" is. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The US customary unit for fissile material is the kilogram. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i'd change "US,OSRD, SAM,TVA, DOE, BNFL, UCOR and RSMC" in "U.S, O.S.R.D., S.A.M., T.V.A., D.O.E, B.N.F.L. U.C.O.R. and R.S.M.C."
WP:ACRO: Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
correct however the US needs to be change 'cause i see some U.S. but also US an exemple "US Army" and this example "Dignitaries including U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander and U.S. Congressman Chuck Fleischmann". CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reorganized (American-English) -> reorganised (Britsh English) realized (American-English) -> realised (Britsh English) vice president (American-English) -> vice-president (Britsh English)
The article is written in US English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the cause then please change the dates it is written in a non-American English style an example 27 August 1985 (Britsh English) and August 27, 1985 (American English). CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article uses the US military date format per WP:STRONGNAT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
director, president and vice-president needs a capital letter 'cause they have a function in the job.
MOS:JOBTITLES: Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you change "then passed to the new Atomic Energy Commission on 1 January 1947" to "then passed to the new Atomic Energy Commission on New Year's Day of 1947" It sounds beter in my opinion. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New Year's Day is celebrated on different days around the world, so 1 January 1947 is better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now i can't find anything else but it looks great. CPA-5 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything more in my opinion the page has met the FA criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

Hopefully I can help to put this one to bed.

No DABs or overlinking.
External links OK
Link roller to Road roller
I see that K-27 allowed the project to attain the 60% enrichment rate, but what allowed them to reach the 94% enrichment postwar? More stages?
No, just by using the ones they had in a continuous series.Add a bit to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.