The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2017 [1].
This article is about the best known part of the Manhattan Project: the Los Alamos Laboratory and the effort to design the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Image review
Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
Support - Reviewing these A-Class articles, especially those written by the nominator, can be frustrating because there is little to offer apart from admiration. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this highly informative contribution. I was astounded to learn how many people were employed there. I thought "authorities" was vague and I recall a "refused", which might be better as "rejected", (no big deal). There's a lot of redirects, mainly the names of the individuals; fixing them would add a little more shine to this fabulous article. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. I went over this at the A-class review and I remain impressed. My only concern is the length. The average reader is going to struggle with an article of nearly 13,000 words. If any of the information can be split into daughter articles, I would urge that this be done, but I have no concerns about the content itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator note: Unless I have missed it, I think this just needs a source review. One can be added in the usual place. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review
No other issues noted. -- Laser brain (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2017 [1].
This article is about the best known part of the Manhattan Project: the Los Alamos Laboratory and the effort to design the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Image review
Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
Support - Reviewing these A-Class articles, especially those written by the nominator, can be frustrating because there is little to offer apart from admiration. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this highly informative contribution. I was astounded to learn how many people were employed there. I thought "authorities" was vague and I recall a "refused", which might be better as "rejected", (no big deal). There's a lot of redirects, mainly the names of the individuals; fixing them would add a little more shine to this fabulous article. Graham Beards ( talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. I went over this at the A-class review and I remain impressed. My only concern is the length. The average reader is going to struggle with an article of nearly 13,000 words. If any of the information can be split into daughter articles, I would urge that this be done, but I have no concerns about the content itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator note: Unless I have missed it, I think this just needs a source review. One can be added in the usual place. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review
No other issues noted. -- Laser brain (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)