Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1
Manhattan Project edit
Set of articles about the Manhattan Project, covering the articles in its NavBox
100 articles
.jpg){kind=small}
Ames Project
Clinton Engineer Works- Dayton Project
- Hanford Site
- K-25
- Los Alamos Laboratory
- Metallurgical Laboratory
- Montreal Laboratory
- Trinity (nuclear test)
- Project Camel
- Wendover Air Force Base
- P-9 Project
- Vannevar Bush
- Arthur Compton
- James Conant
- Priscilla Duffield
- Thomas Farrell
- Leslie Groves
- John Lansdale
- Ernest Lawrence
- James Marshall
- Franklin Matthias
- Dorothy McKibbin
- Kenneth Nichols
- Robert Oppenheimer
- Deak Parsons
- William Purnell
- Frank Spedding
- Charles Thomas
- Paul Tibbets
- Bud Uanna
- Harold Urey
- Stafford Warren
- Ed Westcott
- Roscoe Wilson
- Luis Alvarez
- Robert Bacher
- Hans Bethe
- Aage Bohr
- Neils Bohr
- Norris Bradbury
- James Chadwick
- John Cockcroft
- Harry Daghlian
- Enrico Fermi
- Richard Feynman
- Val Fitch
- James Franck
- Klaus Fuchs
- Maria Goeppert-Mayer
- George Kistiakowsky
- George Koval
- Willard Libby
- Edwin McMillan
- John von Neumann
- Mark Oliphant
- Isidor Isaac Rabi
- James Rainwater
- Norman Ramsey
- Bruno Rossi
- Glenn Seaborg
- Emilio Segrè
- Louis Slotin
- Henry Smyth
- Leo Szilard
- Edward Teller
- Stanislaw Ulam
- Eugene Wigner
- Robert Wilson
- Leona Woods
- Timeline of the Manhattan Project
- Calutron
- Demon core
- Chicago Pile-1
- X-10 Graphite Reactor
- Einstein-Szilard letter
- Oppenheimer security hearing
- Interim Committee
- Alsos Mission
- Smyth Report
- Project Alberta
- Silverplate
- 509th Composite Group
- Fat Man
- Thin Man
- Little Boy
- Pumpkin bomb
- Enola Gay
- Bockscar
- The Great Artiste
- Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Atomic Energy Act of 1946
- Armed Forces Special Weapons Project
- Operation Crossroads
- Operation Peppermint
- British contribution
- RaLa Experiment
- Uranium
- Plutonium
- Contributor(s): Hawkeye7
All the articles in the topic have passed GA or FA --Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't an overview topic be more applicable for this subject? There are simply too many articles that could have something to do with the Manhattan Project, and a delist on any one of them would delist the topic. For instance, if you're going to include Uranium, then it doesn't make sense to keep out enriched uranium (which links to the Manhattan Project in its lead) since that was what was actually used in Little Boy. --十八 06:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's already an overview topic. It represents only the most significant 100 articles in the Manhattan Project category. And enriched uranium is not in the category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a good way to have an overview topic. Even of it is right, it looks like a mish-mash of articles. The first step I would suggest is create a FL on "People ivolved in the Manhattan Project". Maybe even a Sites of GA/FA. Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Or just three. Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria:
- There will be no lead article
- There will be no common template, common category or super-category.
- Every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic will not also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic
- In other words, it will never form a featured topic. Whereas the proposed topic does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Or just three. Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria:
- Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This seems to fail 1d of the criteria (There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together). Category:Manhattan Project has 84 pages in it with another nine subcats, I fail to see why some articles have been selected for this topic, whilst others haven't. Of course, I'm happy to proven wrong, but I don't think this meets the criteria. Maybe, some of the articles could be nominated as smaller subtopics if they are complete. Sorry Hawkeye, I realise the huge amount of effort you've put into this, and I thank you a lot for that. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I just want to pipe in and say what incredible work has been done on these articles. It is an amazing amount of effort to bring these articles up to such high standard. I do agree with the previous comment, it seem some of the articles from Category:Manhattan Project seem to be left out arbitrarily. Maybe this can be renominated in the future? There are not that many missing pages. Again great work! Mattximus (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The science fiction story isn't in the NavBox (Template:Manhattan Project). I will upgrade the S-1 Uranium Committee article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the topic follows the navigation box, which was determined by consensus as the most important articles. Let's have a look at them. Articles in bold are in the set:
- The category is unimportant and can be ignored. The set follows the NavBox. So, which article do you think warrants inclusion, and which one should be removed? Note that there is no possibility of some of them ever being brought to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let me try this again. The current proposed topic is very cluncky to say the least. EVEN if it was 100% the correct form, say somebody opens the topic, what do they see? A bunch of names together. The only large topic that comes into my mind is some German ship topic where 90 articles are obviously name of the ships. In this list, there is a ton of stuff that you have no idea what they are, and maybe the only way to find out is to actually read the entire article. The point of the topic is to quickly introduce a reader to the topic with a menu, not to give him a soup to begin with. That is why, an overview topic should have a few sensible subtopics (i.e. People involved in MP, Timeline of MP, Locations of MP, etc) plus a few obvious ones like Fat Man, maybe Oppenhauer, etc. Even the template presented right above my reply is more clear that the proposed topic, and it kinda alludes that there are some gaps in the topic. Please try again to reorganize the topic and come up with some bare-bone ideas for article names and then let's start the discussion from there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- With discussion that has seemed to have stalled for the past month or so, and already with with two opposes with valid concerns about the topic's scope, I am closing this nomination with no consensus to promote. Feel free to re-nominate when the issues have been addressed.--十八 22:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)