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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Quebec Agreement[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Quebec Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Quebec Agreement/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

First of three articles on the treaties between the US and UK over nuclear weapons. This is the first, and best known, the wartime agreement to merge Tube Alloys with the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments:

"The Quebec Agreement was an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the basic science and advanced engineering related to nuclear energy, and, specifically nuclear weapons during World War II."

I'm not entirely sure what that statement means. Did the agreement cover only development during WWII, or is it simply saying it was agreed to during WWII? It can be read either way, and I'd like some clarity. (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement was not a purely wartime one. I wanted to work World War II into the description. Moved to the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Quebec Agreement stipulated"... yikes, ROS. Sentance split at "and it gave"?

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Even before its report was completed" - para split here?

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"up to us."[32] Bush and Conant" - para split?

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and for producing uranium metal £1,500,000" - "and another £1,500,000 for producing uranium metal"

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"what they discussed.. Most" - double period.

Y well spotted. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In the United States, there was a furore when the Joint Committee" - isn't that the same as the statement one sentence earlier?

Y Yes. Deleted.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"intense pressure on Truman to drop this provision" - wasn't it already dropped in the first para?

Yes! But Congress was not informed of the 15 November 1945 agreement. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire section could use a little TLC, I find it difficult to parse. Perhaps following chronological order as closely as possible might help.

Suggestions welcome, but the section is in strict chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, nice work, Hawkeye. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• inconsistent caps: "a modus vivendi" v ""Modus Vivendi"

  Y I think we agreed on lower case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• there are some overlinked terms: James Chadwick, neutron, Harry Hopkins, Gaseous diffusion

  Y De-linked Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was agreed that in 1942–43" --> "It was agreed that in 1942–1943"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "that the time had now come..." --> "that the time had come..."

  Y John 4:23 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "positions of the two countries was..." --> "positions of the two countries were..."?

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "three countries agreed transfer to..." --> "three countries agreed to transfer to..."?

  Y Added preposition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

• Groves, Leslie (1962); Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reynolds, David (2005). missing location Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg; Mention the date in full on the description page.

  Already does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hyde_Park_Aide-Mémoire.jpg; Better to mention the page that contains the link to "http://www.fdrlibraryvirtualtour.org/graphics/07-27/7-27-FDR-66.pdf" rather than file link itself, per c:COM:Essential information#Source

  Y The page is [1], but contains nothing more. Like many things on Commons, this a bad idea. Added the virtual tour page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Chadwick,_Groves_and_Tolman.jpg; same as above

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:American_and_Allied_leaders_at_international_conferences_-_NARA_-_292626.jpg; Source field on the description page links to the Wikipedia article of "U.S. National Archives and Records Administration". Suggest to replace it with the URL link to the image.

  The URL link is contained in the Record ID field. It's part of the c:template:NARA-image-full Commons template, and I cannot change it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:L_to_R,_Field_Marshall_Sir_Harold_Alexander,_Supreme_Commander_MTO,_Secretary_of_War_Henry_Stimson,_and_Field..._-_NARA_-_198813.jpg; same as above

  Same as above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg; remove the first source, it is a dead link

  Don't see the need. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vannevar_Bush_portrait.jpg; the description page is completely messed up

  Looks fine to me. Link works. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please structure the description section with c:Template:Information. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, but I don't see any requirement on Commons to use the template, or any requirement for us to comply if there was one. I don't like making changes on Commons, and per WP:CONEXCEPT, we cannot require them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for clarification. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the others look good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ✓ Passed image review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

• Great job with this article. Not much to nitpick about, I have to say.
• The Tizard Mission isn't introduced, same for the Tizard Committee. Suggest a short sentence explanation for both.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• suggest "Lord Cherwell, as Frederick Lindemann was now known", as we have another Lindemann involved

  Y Done. Charles had an obit in the New York Times, but he was only a brigadier, and does not have an entry in the ODNB. He is best known today for the Lindemann Trust Fellowships, which allow postdoctoral scientists to pursue research in the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Afterwards, Roosevelt and Churchill spent some time together beforehand at Roosevelt's estate in Hyde Park, New York". Afterwards and beforehand seem to contradict one another here?

  Y I think what you mean here is that my oxymorons are mighty weak. Deleted "beforehand". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• the sentence that begins "Bohr was not regarded as a security risk..." seems out of place. Why was Bohr not being a security risk relevant here?

  Y It's what most of the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire is about; you can read it on the right. Removed this bit, so it just reads "Most of this dealt with Bohr's thoughts on international control" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.