This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 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 |
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 is part of the History of the Manhattan Project 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody reading this have any suggestions on how to sub categorize this page. It's a very dense topic and I'm having trouble separating all the information. Any advise would be helpful.
Thank you! Ohheyheidi ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I went through your article and did some copy editing in class today. I found that you often separate your sentences by multiple commas in order to fit all the information possible. I think that it is important to go through and figure out the best way possible to separate these sentences so that it is easier for the reader to make sense of what is being said. I also think that your sub heading the Born Secret and the information under it can be expanded a little bit more. You talk about the "second item" and then discuss section 9 but nothing in between. That could help expand on your article. It was a nice touch having all the links to other wikipedia articles within your article and good job so far.
Michalge ( talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a quick peer review. I'll try and point out some available sources which aren't in the article, some style issues and some other stuff.
Thats all for now. I think this is a great start to an article and should only improve as breadth and coverage increase. Protonk ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and suggestions. I've shortened the article's introduction and moved the extra information into different subheadings. Bryan Miller's article was a useful source in discussion of the public's involvement in the Act. I will do some more research on the implications of the act and add that information in the next week.
If you have any more suggestions I'd appreciate them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and to provide some good sources.
Ohheyheidi ( talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The act is from 1946, but a 1943 Churchill decision ins mentioned as a consequence. How so?
Belgian reaction should be included. They controlled the most valuable uranium ore deposits at the time and in 1944 agreed to deliver exclusively to the United States and the United Kingdom. In return Belgium would get access to nuclear know how for commercial, non-military applications. Most of the uranium for the Manhattan project (70%) came from Union_Minière_du_Haut_Katanga, a Belgian mining company. In 1939 Edgar_Sengier, the director of the company, shipped 1200 tons of high quality (65% U3O8) uranium ore to the US and stored it in a depot on Staten Island, where it remained until 1942 when the Manhatten project started. DS Belgium ( talk) 19:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs) 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Hawkeye7
I've read the article and made some notes. It's very strong, but the most important and troubling issue with the article is the existance of close paraphrasing.
It is acceptible to quickfail GA candidates with close paraphrasing issues, but I don't think that's appropriate here. I see that all these issues were already present by the time you, Hawkeye7, got involved in the article, and they are not problems you introduced. I have also looked for close paraphrasing issues in Hewlett&Anderson, Jones, Miller, and Reubhausen (who together constitute most of the sourcing for the article), and have not found any further close-paraphrasing issues. If you can fix these two existing issues, I think we can consider the article to be copyvio-free. Once those are done, the less important issues below can be addressed.
Your improvements are terrific, Hawkeye7. I think all that's left is to reword Morland's bit, and it'll be good to go. – Quadell ( talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atomic Energy Act of 1946. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the process for making more than minor edits to good or featured articles, so I thought I would raise the topic here.
Independence and Deterrence by Margaret Gowing details enquires made by the US Congress about secret agreements regarding the bomb; enquiries to which May, the chairman of the house committee on military affairs replied that it was his understanding that such agreements existed, but had been unable to obtain details. Meanwhile, another committee member stated "we received definite and positive word without qualification to the effect that there was nothing affecting this legislation that had not been completely published and publicised". Gowing concludes this brief interlude on the details of House deliberations by stating that McMahon told the British Minister of Defence in 1949 that had he known about the agreements, there would have been no act, and told Churchill the same in 1952. Currently, our article includes the very last element of this, the statement to Churchill, but I believe the rest is relevant and important to understanding the context in which the bill was signed in.
Would anyone object in principle to the inclusion of details relating to this, and would anyone object to a broader explanation of the British reactions to the bill?
BilledMammal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 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 |
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||||||
Atomic Energy Act of 1946 is part of the History of the Manhattan Project 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anybody reading this have any suggestions on how to sub categorize this page. It's a very dense topic and I'm having trouble separating all the information. Any advise would be helpful.
Thank you! Ohheyheidi ( talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I went through your article and did some copy editing in class today. I found that you often separate your sentences by multiple commas in order to fit all the information possible. I think that it is important to go through and figure out the best way possible to separate these sentences so that it is easier for the reader to make sense of what is being said. I also think that your sub heading the Born Secret and the information under it can be expanded a little bit more. You talk about the "second item" and then discuss section 9 but nothing in between. That could help expand on your article. It was a nice touch having all the links to other wikipedia articles within your article and good job so far.
Michalge ( talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a quick peer review. I'll try and point out some available sources which aren't in the article, some style issues and some other stuff.
Thats all for now. I think this is a great start to an article and should only improve as breadth and coverage increase. Protonk ( talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and suggestions. I've shortened the article's introduction and moved the extra information into different subheadings. Bryan Miller's article was a useful source in discussion of the public's involvement in the Act. I will do some more research on the implications of the act and add that information in the next week.
If you have any more suggestions I'd appreciate them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and to provide some good sources.
Ohheyheidi ( talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The act is from 1946, but a 1943 Churchill decision ins mentioned as a consequence. How so?
Belgian reaction should be included. They controlled the most valuable uranium ore deposits at the time and in 1944 agreed to deliver exclusively to the United States and the United Kingdom. In return Belgium would get access to nuclear know how for commercial, non-military applications. Most of the uranium for the Manhattan project (70%) came from Union_Minière_du_Haut_Katanga, a Belgian mining company. In 1939 Edgar_Sengier, the director of the company, shipped 1200 tons of high quality (65% U3O8) uranium ore to the US and stored it in a depot on Staten Island, where it remained until 1942 when the Manhatten project started. DS Belgium ( talk) 19:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk ·
contribs) 23:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator:
Hawkeye7
I've read the article and made some notes. It's very strong, but the most important and troubling issue with the article is the existance of close paraphrasing.
It is acceptible to quickfail GA candidates with close paraphrasing issues, but I don't think that's appropriate here. I see that all these issues were already present by the time you, Hawkeye7, got involved in the article, and they are not problems you introduced. I have also looked for close paraphrasing issues in Hewlett&Anderson, Jones, Miller, and Reubhausen (who together constitute most of the sourcing for the article), and have not found any further close-paraphrasing issues. If you can fix these two existing issues, I think we can consider the article to be copyvio-free. Once those are done, the less important issues below can be addressed.
Your improvements are terrific, Hawkeye7. I think all that's left is to reword Morland's bit, and it'll be good to go. – Quadell ( talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atomic Energy Act of 1946. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the process for making more than minor edits to good or featured articles, so I thought I would raise the topic here.
Independence and Deterrence by Margaret Gowing details enquires made by the US Congress about secret agreements regarding the bomb; enquiries to which May, the chairman of the house committee on military affairs replied that it was his understanding that such agreements existed, but had been unable to obtain details. Meanwhile, another committee member stated "we received definite and positive word without qualification to the effect that there was nothing affecting this legislation that had not been completely published and publicised". Gowing concludes this brief interlude on the details of House deliberations by stating that McMahon told the British Minister of Defence in 1949 that had he known about the agreements, there would have been no act, and told Churchill the same in 1952. Currently, our article includes the very last element of this, the statement to Churchill, but I believe the rest is relevant and important to understanding the context in which the bill was signed in.
Would anyone object in principle to the inclusion of details relating to this, and would anyone object to a broader explanation of the British reactions to the bill?
BilledMammal ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)