| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Totem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Operation Totem 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 Totem 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 A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
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.
SkoreKeep (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi SkoreKeep, good to see your explanatory text above. The reason I removed the note was that it explained a number of things that were not relevant to this particular series of two tests. It was codenamed, that's clear, but that's in the article title - there's no need for that to be repeated in the footnote. It was not numbered in a Totem 1-1, Totem 1-2 or any other such series, as explained in the footnote, so there was no need for that sentence either. There was no need for translation into English, and the test was not cancelled, nor aborted. None of the sentences were required to explain this test, though they may have been very helpful for explaining other tests. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Totem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Not a lot to nitpick with this one, so up to your usual high standard. I've read it through twice and could only find the following pretty minor things:
- there is inconsistency in how the Montebello Islands are presented, also Monte Bello Islands. I think the former is the standard spelling.
Standardised on "Montebello". All the sources use "Monte Bello".
- say what Beadell was?
- added " the surveyor at the Long Range Weapons Establishment" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- re: Penny's visit to the selected site, hadn't Beadell already seen the area?
- who was Leslie Martin and why was he included?
- added "the Defence Scientific Adviser"
- I think it should be Land Rover, as it is a proper name
- it is mentioned as the Emu site, but wasn't it the Emu Field site?
- should Engineer in Chief be hyphenated?
- link 17th Construction Squadron (Australia)
- suggest "with elements from the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers"
- what were the purposes for which the USAF aircraft were to be used?
- added "for radioactive cloud sampling"
- Salibury needs an s, and should it be LRWE Salisbury?
- suggest linking Artesian aquifer for bore water
- drop the parenthesis from "on a lake bed)."
- say what Titterton was
- suggest "in 1917 had disrupted"
- suggest "Walter MacDougall
washad been appointed" - Clay Pan, is this referring to the Dingo Claypan? Or the Emu Field site in general?
- should that be Yankuntjatjarra rather than Jangkuntjara? Jangkundjara is a common misspelling, so this may also be such. There are often many different versions.
- Yes, following the sources. Corrected. Have you heard of the bitter dispute over the spelling of Ngunnawal?
- Did the RC conclude that Aboriginal people were exposed to the tests as a result of the inadequate warnings?
- how long did it take for the polonium to decay to safe levels?
- there were canvas screens on the aircraft? Or inside the windows? Doesn't sound very aerodynamic to me.
- "cloud ma
kde 15" - "although they were instructed not to eat or smoke" before decontamination, or while working on the aircraft?
- link Granite Downs
- "injuries received by Aboriginal
Ppeople" - is there post-1985 information about the impacts of the tests on Aboriginal people?
- I'd be consistent between Area K and K site
- I'm left wondering about the Australian (and British) veterans of the tests. Doesn't the Department of Veterans' Affairs look after veterans of these tests? This seems like an area that should be covered in the article.
- why were monitoring stations established across Australia for later tests? Were they concerned that fallout affected wider areas?
- Sort of. The tests revealed hard-to-predict patterns of fallout. In the late 1950s, concerns grew over rising levels of radioactive contamination in the northern hemisphere resulting from atmospheric testing, particularly strontium 90. So the Australian government became more concerned, and more detailed monitoring was put in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- fn 35 "Whewn the Desert Skies Caught Fire" has a typo
- ISBNs could be provided for the two volumes of the RC, just for completeness.
That's me done. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 23 October 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) 00:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)