Talk:MAUD Committee/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Lead and infobox;
  • Please introduce "Rudolf Peierls and Otto Robert Frisch"; nationality and profession.

     Y Noted that they were refugee physicists. Nationality is tricky; Peierls was German, but a naturalised British citizen; Frisch was Austrian, but not yet nationalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • the potential military feasibility a nuclear bomb; I cant't get the flow I think you've missed something before "a nuclear bomb"

     Y Added missing "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • "Use of Uranium for a Bomb" and "Use of Uranium as a source of power"; "B" in bomb is to be de-capitalized, or put on initial capitals for "source of power"

    While I agree that the capitalisation makes no sense, that's the way it appears in the actual titles. [1][2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Why was it called MAUD Committee? What is the abbreviation of MAUD?

     Y Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Can infobox be added?

    Which one do you have in mind? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 1;
  • Link Rome

     Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • John A.Wheeler -> John A. Wheeler

     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • if he were was able

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Use conversion template for "5 kilogram" "one kilogram"

    Normally a precious metal would be converted into troy ounces, but the Imperial/US customary unit for fissile materials is kilograms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Frisch and Peierls produced the Frisch–Peierls memorandum in March 1940; please brief of the contents in a line or two

    "They reported that a five kilogram bomb would be the equivalent to several thousand tons of dynamite, and even a one kilogram bomb would be impressive. Because of the potential radioactive fallout, they thought that the British might find it morally unacceptable." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

More to come. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 2;
  • A Committee was created; Why is "C" capitalized?

     Y No good reason. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

  • It held its first meeting on 10 April 1940 -> The first meeting was held on 10 April 1940

    Why use the passive? People usually want me to remove it, not put it in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • in the ground floor main committee room; Do you think that this detail is necessary?

    Yes; it is remarked on in many accounts. Someone doing a tour can view the actual place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • y with an i -> "y" with an "i"; to make it clear

     Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • British born scientist; I think it is to be "scientists"

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Its meeting were; "meetings" or "meeting was"?

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 3; Very-well written
  • The "That" was based on the fact

     Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Section 4;
  • conversion for 1,800 tons

    This is part of a quote, so I don't want to do that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • conversion for 1 kg

    Again, there is no conversion for fissile materials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Section 5;
  • to the president; isn't capital needed for "p"?

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • His report was issued "on" 17 May 1941

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • a talented an experimentalist

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • 25 million dollars -? US$25 million

    Again, it is part of a quote, so I don't want to change it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

    The official exchange rate was $4.03 = £1, so about £6 million. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Britain did not have the money or the manpower -> Britain neither had the money nor the manpower; please ignore if the bit was said by Allison

    Part of a quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Link "James B. Conant"; James Bryant Conant

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • its atomic spies Klaus Fuchs; lastname

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Lavrenty Beria's report to Stalin of March 1942; Mention "Stalin" in full, and link, as it is the first mention

      Done = Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • with the deliberately misleading name of Tube Alloys; to mislead who, the enemies, or for security purposes?

     Y For security purposes, Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • "Imperial Chemical Industries"; already defined in the last para of section 2

     Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• 58.1% confidence, violation likely. But I understand that it is mainly due to the quotation, so no issues.

• Images; Create proper sections for description and licensing of File:Sir_Mark_Oliphant.jpg, File:MAUD_Report.jpg
• No dabs found, external link OK.

Loved reading the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, spelling, and grammar):  b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section):  b(citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):  d(copyvio and plagiarism):  

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects):  b(focused):  

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b(appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply