- (Regarding the image check) I did find one issue: if the author of File:1946-07-08 First Pictures Atomic Blast.ogv is really "Universal Newsreels", then the {{PD-USGov}} tag is incorrect.
- Almost every Universal newsreel on Commons is incorrectly tagged. Universal placed its collection in the Public Domain back in 1976. I have corrected the tagging for this video, and left a note on Commons for the House Elf to go over the rest. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The final sentence (under "Legacy") has some problems. (1) When a semicolon joins independent clauses, everything after the semicolon should act as a complete sentence. (2) It would be helpful if each quote had its own citation. Currently they're together, and in reverse order. (3) It isn't clear what the text means by "coincidence", since the bikini was purposefully named after the test. I think it means that both explanations could be true, but there are better ways to put it. (4) Notwithstanding the previous point, "coincidence" is a common word and should not be linked. (5) "Perhaps" doesn't fit will grammatically, and I think it's acting as a weasel-word here. (6) It isn't immediately clear how "atom bombs reduce everybody to primitive costume". The source clarifies by discussing both half-naked islanders and people emerging from a bomb blast with torn clothes; either choice is amazingly distasteful, though that's not the article's fault. And (7) I personally think it would be useful to link "bikini swimwear"; it's previously linked way up in the nicknames section, but that's a long way back. – Quadell (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-worked the paragraph. For bad taste, the atomic explosion cake is hard to beat, but the fashion designers did their best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the clause "Although there are claims that participants in the Operation Crossroads tests were well protected against radiation sickness". To aviod weasel words, consider rewriting it as "Although planners attempted to protect participants in the Operation Crossroads tests against radiation sickness". (There clearly were attempts, and some protective measures. But the article doesn't describe any claim that they were "well" protected.)
- Sounds good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The noun phrase "immediate, concentrated local radioactive fallout" has four adjectives, but only one comma. That makes the sentence confusing to parse.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "deadly burst of radiations from the bomb" should be "deadly burst of radiation from the bomb".
- Probably, but it is a quote so I cannot change it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack! You're right. Stricken. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When a source is static publication that does not change (such as works with ISBNs or ISSNs, or scans of print magazines), they should not have "retrieved on" dates.
- There's still some debate about the journals. But I don't see any problems here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oll Korrect now. – Quadell (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article consistently uses the serial comma, which is appropriate. But the caption for the "Prospective Operation Crossroads target ships" image does not.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the comma in this edit, since I think that would be more correct. – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the lead is too short. It consists of three paragraphs, and the first is quite short. MOS:LEAD recommends "Three or four paragraphs" for articles with "More than 30,000 characters"; this article has more than 60,000 characters, not including the lead and end sections.
- I've expanded the lead to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really impressed with the comprehensiveness of this article, with the sourcing, and with the prose. If I identify a lot of prose issues, it's only because there's a lot of prose to check; most of it is great, and some of it is brilliant. Still, the sentence in the background section that begins "Commodore William S. 'Deak' Parsons" is too long and winding to be easily understood at the first reading. It should be split somehow.
- Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not 100% sure how military titles are handled grammatically, so help me out here. Is this clause correct? "...by the Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, Fleet Admiral Ernest King at a press conference." Are there missing prepositions, or maybe a comma needed after Ernest King? I'm honestly not sure, but it looks funny to me.
- Comma needed after "King". But I've re-worded the sentence instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider this sentence in the opposition section: "Manhattan Project scientists who had argued for a public test of the bomb in lieu of dropping it on a Japanese city now argued that further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous." That sounds a bit like a "gotcha" to me, and smacks of bias (whether intentional or unintentional), as if the reader is supposed to think "Can't those scientist-protesters make up their minds?" I don't think it's fair to lead the witness in this way. Personally, I would reword it is "Several Manhattan Project scientists argued that, since the affects of nuclear bomb had been seen studied after their use in World War II, further testing was unnecessary and environmentally dangerous."
- Agreed. These are two very different things. I think that people sometimes forget that that there was a difference between conducting Trinity in wartime, when people were taking risks and dying every day, and a peacetime test like Crossroads. Crossroads did raise a considerable doubts that a demonstration in 1945 would have had any effect on the Japanese, but this was anyone's guess in 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few sentences down, in the phrase "When they complained that...", it isn't clear who "they" are. The phrasing adds to the perception that all opponents of the tests are being lumped together as "complainers". I think it could be better worded as "When objections arose that..."
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Congressional critics" means "critics within Congress", not "critics of Congress", but it's a tad ambiguous.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch out for overlinking. Words like "oil, ammunition, and fuel" should not be linked, and I don't think the vulnerability article gives further useful information when linked from here, for instance. Please go through this article and, for each link, consider if the reader can be expected to already understand the term in the context of the article, and whether the linked article will provide further information which would help the reader better understand Operation Crossroads. So aircraft carrier and seaplane are useful links, but I don't think airplane is. Look carefully at links like seawater, emaciation, and goat; perhaps they are useful, but perhaps not.
- Unlinked. Kept seawater and emaciation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the list at the top of the Preparation section. I think it could be more effectly rendered in prose. (Thematically, it can be grouped into requirements for isolation, for U.S. control, for anchorage needs, and for weather/water flow conditions.)
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very nice. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the word "destruction" would be more apt than "carnage" in "The main cause of less-than-expected ship carnage". "Carnage" almost always refers specifically to death and gore.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would break up the sentence beginning "Many of the closer ships received", and the sentence beginning "Although the Able bomb missed its target" (both in Abel's "Radiation" section).
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption of Baker's target array lists the depths of two of submarines that sank: the Pilotfish and the Apogon. But it doesn't list the depth of the third submarine that sank: the Skipjack.
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider this caption. "The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground, which most observers believed was the upended battleship Arkansas. Blandy said it was smoke." It's true that Blandy said it was smoke, but Blandy also said radiation death is not painful. James Delgado (a much more credible commenter) says it was a rainshadow of sorts. I think the caption should be revised to something like the following, with the citation modified accordingly.
- The Wilson cloud lifts, revealing a vertical black object, larger than ships in the foreground. Most observers believed this to be the upended battleship Arkansas, but other explanations have been offered.
- I think "most observers" covers it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose says that Gilda (Able) missed her target by 710 yards. But the caption for Able's target array says the "intended bullseye" was the Nevada, and the chart says that Nevada was 615 yards from zero. Where did the other 95 yards go? (All this info is sourced to Delgado 1991.)
- The first figure comes from Delgado, p. 86. The second comes from p. 87. The second refers to where the ship sank, which may differ. Altered the caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like an anon added a {{fact}} tag back on September 11 of this year. It ought to be dealt with. Is the info in Shurcliff 1947?
- I could not find it, so I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Unfissioned plutonium" section says "The results of these plutonium detection tests, and of tests performed on fish caught in the lagoon, caused all decontamination work to be abruptly terminated...", but it doesn't say what the results were. You have to read down 7 paragraphs into the next section to confirm that yes, they found plutonium everywhere. There's no need for that kind of suspense. The explanation can be quite brief, but it should at least be mentioned that the test "[t]o see if this plan was working" showed that it was unambiguously not.
- The article says "The local government elected to close the fly in, fly out, land-based diving operation". If the reader is not already familiar with the term, it isn't clear what this means (nor is it clear how to parse the sentence). A slight modification, and a link to Fly-in fly-out, should do the trick.
|
