Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dayton Project

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Dayton Project

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the Manhattan Project's more minor projects, but critical to the building of the atomic bomb. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"0.222473 milligrams (0.00343328 gr)": Why that precision?
Errr, it's what the source says. Do you have a suggestion for a better precision? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - My source tells me that pi is about 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510. I don't generally include all those digits, though, because it's boring and not usually relevant to the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Changed to "A curie of polonium weighs about 0.2 milligrams". The important point is that they processed a ton of lead oxide to produce less than a milligram of polonium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that nobody seems to notice - perhaps everybody does it in America - is that Monsanto ran a chemical processing operation involving radioactive substances in a residential neighborhood. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cost: This section has only one short sentence.
Expanded into a table, and moved into the Production section Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post war: Should be a noun, per WP:HEADING.
Removed that heading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a 2,000 pounds (910 kg) bomb": adj=on
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: just a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

images seem appropriately licenced to me;
in the lead, "recruited by the Manhattan Project in the role of coordinating the plutonium purification and production work being carried out at various sites" --> "recruited by the Manhattan Project to coordinate the plutonium purification and production work being carried out at various sites"
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"when Mound Laboratories were completed..." --> "when Mound Laboratories was completed" or "when the Mound Laboratories were completed"?
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Early in 1943, he travelled to the East with..." --> is it necessary to capitalise "East" here?
Y De-captitated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see some British English spelling, for instance "centimetre" (which is probably due to the conversion template)
Y Yes, that's right. sp=us cards added. It's all Noah Webster's fault. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out to me that "meter" is not the official US spelling, just Noah Webster's. The Manhattan Project consistently used "metre". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
was there a Unit II? Units I, III, IV and V seem to be mentioned, but not 2...
Y Yes, but it wasn't very important. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the Production section, in the table, I suggest that "cost" be capitalised as "Cost"
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"until the 1980s, when it was demolished, and the land was sold in 1992." --> "until the 1980s, when it was demolished. The land was sold in 1992."
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

The Talbotts were among the heirs of the Delco company, which was by then a part of General Motors.[7] This fortune had come in large part from profits made during World War I on airplanes that never flew. While it's interesting that Thomas was sort of self-dealing with his wife's family property, this bit really isn't relevant to the article.
I think it is very important. Especially in view of what happens later in the article. It explains why the property was chosen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the fact that the family controlled the Playhouse is relevant to the article. The source of their wealth isn't relevant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
0.2 to 0.3 milligrams (0.0031 to 0.0046 gr) What the hell's a gr? A grain? If so link the unit in the template on first use as I'd expect that most people also wouldn't know what that was.
Done It's the American customary unit. In fact, it is the default conversion of the {{convert}} template. The conversion is mainly for Americans, as everyone else knows metric, and they are familiar with grains, since they own firearms. Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<Western drawl>I'm afraid that you're under a bit of a misapprehension, son; the only ones really familiar with grains are the reloaders, and they're a pretty small proportion of the American public, as the rest of us are content to buy our ammo as God intended.</drawl>
32 to 83 curies (1.2 to 3.1 TBq) TBq = teraBequerels? Link this one as well.
And PBq.
Done Curies and becquerels are linked on first use. 1 Ci = 37 GBq Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Resume of Monsanto's Operation of the Dayton Project Sites-Unites I, II, Ill, IV and Others Fix the spellings here.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And be consistent with the date format in the references.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration was given to using Unit II in December 1946, but was rejected in favor of erecting a Quonset Hut at Unit III. Missed this earlier. What's this in reference to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Moved up two paragraphs to the Unit II discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2017 (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.