 | Operation Mosaic has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Operation Mosaic is part of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
The table on this page is generated by database edit
The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.
Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.
There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.
I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.
Editing yield table edit
G2 was 98kt. The British government kept it hidden until the 80s because they had promised not to conduct high-yield tests in Australia.
Seeing the other topic in the talk page, I'm unsure how I should go about correcting this. I do have a serious problem with having the rely on what is essentially unsourced information. 118.211.25.160 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so which data is "essentially unsourced" information, that on the page now or the changed yield? The bombs have three references each in the table they're in. If you mean the increased yield being unsourced, then all we need to do is find a source. And so I did. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018) edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Mosaic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326165026/http://www.arpansa.gov.au//pubs/technicalreports/tr062.pdf to http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/technicalreports/tr062.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Mosaic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A few comments from me:
- the lead could do with expansion to properly summarise the article
- in the lead, the statement about the claim doesn't really reflect what occurred. Would it be better to flesh it out a bit more and state that the claim remains unsubstantiated?
- not sure how Operation Hurricane fell short on the "independence" count? Surely it meant that the UK had an independent nuclear strike capability?
- "produced release neutrons" Is a release neutron a thing, or is this a typo?
- "and one with a tamper to investigate its effect" what sort of tamper?
- why was Emu Field considered unsuitable for these tests?
- mention that Hurricane had been at Monte Bello? And explain why they were chosen?
- But wasn't Hurricane a 25 KT yield? Why did the British understate the yield? Is this known?
- I assume Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee was Australian? Perhaps clarify this?
- frigate is duplinked
- What was the purpose of TG 308.3?
- link Westland Whirlwind (helicopter)
- say where the Parting Pool was
- what were the suitable weather conditions required for G2? They obviously differed from G1
- what 15 July deadline?
- was Smith ever interviewed about her claims in the book? What did the Royal Commission say?
- is there any explanation as to why the clouds rose so much higher than expected in both tests?
- "unexpectedly high yield or because the arithmetical values of the parameters used in the computations did not completely fit the conditions of firing". The Royal Commission says: "either way, somebody got it wrong". 12:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- is there a benchmark that can be applied to the REM dose? In terms of what is normal or what is likely to result in detrimental effects?
- link Radioactive decay
- in the summary table, the Notes column is a bit inconsistent, Boosted fission weapon vs Boosted design, and no tamper mentioned for G1
- Boyes needs a location
- File:HMAS Warrego by Allan Green SLV H91.325 78.jpeg needs a US PD tag
- as does File:HMAS Junee by Allan Green SLV H91.108 2689.jpeg
- the US PD tag for File:HMAS Karangi.jpg needs a date of publication
That's me done, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)