Following on the articles on Groves and Oppenheimer is this article on Deak Parsons, the US Navy's senior man on the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In citations but not in bibliography: Groves 1962 and Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977.
Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated.
Be consistent in whether you provide OCLCs for books that already have ISBNs.
Be consistent in whether you use full dates in citations. --Eisfbnore• talk 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
All corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Comments -- Very good as usual, almost ready to support. Structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look fine; prose-wise, performed my habitual copyedit but a few things:
Remind me, do our American cousins not hyphenate "Commander in Chief"?
Does the section header "Proximity Fuze" need to be all caps?
On 6 January 1943, Helena was part of a cruiser force that bombarded of Munda in the Solomon Islands -- "bombarded off Munda" or just "bombarded Munda"?
Have to admit I don't quite get why Groves was (apparently) angered by the school at Los Alamos -- did Parsons go over budget in realising his more permanent vision, or what?
Not sure whether it's necessary/appropriate to put "Rear Admiral William S. Parsons Award for Scientific and Technical Progress" in inverted commas -- I'd have though just the caps would be sufficient for the name of an award.
He misused the Manhattan Project's priority on something Groves regarded as non-essential. Added explanation.
Thanks for the review and the copyedit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a big article and in my honest opinion the first four paragraphs need to be sourced/referenced. Then it may become a an "A Class" article. Adamdaley (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
All the paragraphs are sourced. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead does not require citations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The article has not been marked against the "B Class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
While it's probably worth someone's while (perhaps yours, Adam!) filling out the B-Class assessment, it's not a prerequisite for nominating at higher levels such as A-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the 'Death and legacy' section you mention "the anti-intellectualism of recent months" and Oppenheimer being blocked from access to classified material. Why did these events occur? I'm by no means an expert on the era but I assume it had something to do with allegations of Oppenheimer being a Soviet spy and McCarthyism. Could you possibly add half a sentence to give further context here?
Done Added a reference to McCarthyism.. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Overall this is an excellent article in my opinion. Only a few minor points above to deal with or discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
All my points have been dealt with, so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.