Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Leslie Groves

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Groves

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Leslie Groves of Manhattan project fame. Mostly a trial balloon for some nuclear related articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think the lead might be too long. It is currently five paragraphs, but I think that the maximum is four per WP:LEAD. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've trimmed it a little and merged two paragraphs, so there are now only four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: I've taken a longer look at the article now and can't find much to fault. Other than these couple, I think this is an excellent article:
    • there are no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
    • the page ranges in the Notes should have endashes per WP:DASH;
      • I fixed these myself as it seemed minor. I used a script, if this is an issue, please just feel free to revert. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • most of the images seem correctly licenced, although I'm a little uncertain about "File:K-25 Aerial.jpg". Is there anything that can categorically prove that it is in fact a government image? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to be part of a series of photographs taken by the DOE shortly before the building was demolished in 2008. I could not find the original online but found this picture which is credited to DOE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should be okay for A class, but it might be more of an issue at FAC. Not sure, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- good to see this subject given a worthy article; made a few minor copyedits but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials -- well done, as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support
    • The citation error tool reports one error - apparently multiple references are using the same name 'Fine&Remington, pp. 663-664' (a very minor issue though); and
    • Unless I'm missing it, in the 'Manhattan Project' section I don't believe you actually state what that project was (i.e. a project to develop atomic weapons). It is certainly implied but maybe a single sentence in the first paragraph describing its aim might be useful to readers with less knowledge of the subject?
    • Other than that this is another excellent article, with very little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues resolved, happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments I think there might be value in adding a note to military brat saying, at a minimum, "See also Military_brat_(U.S._subculture)#Linguistic_reclamation", so that people will understand not just the usage but why it's okay to put it in the second sentence of a biography. OTOH, Hawkeye and others here have written a lot more (and a lot more authoritatively) on military matters than I have, so I don't know. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No thoughts? Without a footnote, I prefer "As the son of a United States Army chaplain, Groves lived at a number of Army posts." I made the edit; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed one however to a but; copyeditors, see Chicago 5.207. Btw, I'm reading nothing but glowing praise for Chicago (16th edition), even from people I wouldn't expect to praise it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone mind if I change ", Jr" to "Jr." per Chicago 6.47 and 10.19? - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. In Australian English we don't use the dot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to get a feel for how much of what I've learned at SHIPS translates to MILHIST generally. Am I right that an article about the US military should be converted to AmEng sometime before it passes ACR? - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but in this case I deliberately wrote the article in American English. All I meant was that doing so means that the automated spell check et al doesn't work any more, so I have to rely on my own eyes and those of the reviewing editors. Occasionally I learn something new about American English. So thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need some help on "so" and "therefore" (search for " so " and " therefore "). I know I've seen discussions in style guides and elsewhere that both require that one element appears to logically follow from the other, but I can't find anything useful in AP Stylebook, the index of Chicago, or WT:MOS. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell how many people we're talking about here: "In attendance were Captain Clarence Renshaw, one of Groves' assistants, Major Hugh J. Casey, the chief of the Construction Division's Design and Engineering Section, and George Bergstrom, a former president of the American Institute of Architects." - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is too much for one sentence: "Groves was impressed with Oppenheimer's grasp of what would be required and became convinced that the scientist was the right and the only man to run the laboratory, although no one agreed with him in 1942 when Oppenheimer had no administrative experience and, unlike other potential candidates, no Nobel Prize."
  • "Oppenheimer's brilliant, charismatic leadership was decisive in creating workable designs and getting them transformed into usable bombs.": laying it on a little thick, and it's not supported by any facts or citations in this article ... at least, not that I can tell from the micro-snippet from Racing for the bomb at Gbooks. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm not saying we shouldn't say this ... it's something that I've seen before, and it's important ... just that I think it would be best either to spend more time on it and drag in some supporting material from Oppenheimer's article, or else pare the statement back a bit. One option would be to start a new subsection as an excuse to stick in a hatnote pointing people to the Oppenheimer article for more. - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked it; see what you think. I know you've got a PhD in military history and I don't mean to comment here on what constitutes good history or good writing in general; this is a comment on my interpretation of V and NPOV. In an article about X who appoints Y, it's fine to say that Y was good at something; the relevance to X is clear. Saying that Y was fantastic at or indispensable to something would generally require supporting and balancing text and citations, and that's usually too much of a digression in the article on X. One possibility would be a footnote saying something like "for more about Oppenheimer's contribution to the success of the program, see [section in his article]". - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one gsearch hit[1]), an "AA-3" priority rating seems to have something to do with stocking 90 days worth of inventory. I can't find an article on Wikipedia that covers the AAA or AA-3 rating. Can you say something about what an AAA rating gave the project? - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the newspaper article just called for them to get an AA-3 in order to build up their inventories. I've slipped in a paragraph lifted from the Manhattan Project article (still under construction). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These enemies eventually succeeded in drastically reducing Groves' power and authority ...": I'm not going to take a position, but some would say that NPOV requires something more, such as a specific action supported by a citation. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great work by Hawkeye. I'll keep an eye on this page in case anyone wants to take a stab at some of my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Leslie_Groves&oldid=396903191"