The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Gog the Mild ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Β« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
United States war plans (1945β1950)Β ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This is a new article, one that has been on my mind for some time. Some articles referenced the war plans of this period, but there was nothing on them. Put simply, the American planners were unable to come up with anything practical, but the work done was not wasted; what was fantastic in the 1940s would ultimately become very real in the 1950s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Surprised that there hasn't been more interest in this article. I'd like to offer the following comments:
Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks interesting. There's another article above this one on my reviewing list, but I'll get to it fairly soon. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Very good work. Not much to gripe about here at all. Hog Farm Bacon 03:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825 β’ Talk 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
With A2, I think there's a slight tendency to use excessive detail. See below for an example that stood out to me in Broiler:
I don't think the detail I've struck through adds anything to the reader's understanding of US war plans 45β50. There are a few other examples of this (or information which could be simplified & condensed), but on balance I think the article still meets A2 as the majority of detail helps build a comprehensive picture of the plans.
With A4, the main issue is comma use/clause construction, which in some places affects legibility and creates ambiguity. Serial commas aren't consistently used throughout the article ( MOS:SERIAL). I tried to avoid adding or removing many commas myself as I didn't want to force a specific style upon you. There appears to be some comma overuse and splicing, which I think would be easier to sort out once the serial commas are standardised. Perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors will have someone who's more qualified than me to look at this. I don't think the subject matter helps, as summing up detailed, technical plans encourages detailed, list-like prose β the hardest kind to write clearly and accurately! The writing itself is concise and mostly clear, and I don't think the article would "require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", so it meets A4. I hope some you find some of my thoughts helpful, and would be interested to hear if you or other editors disagree/take a different view. Cheers, Jr8825 β’ Talk 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to get to this in the morning. Hog Farm Bacon 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Title page of the Sandia National Laboratory Source appears to suggest that the title uses the spelling Mark 4 Bomb, not Mk4 Bomb, although the latter is used frequently in the PDF text.
All sources are from high-quality sources. I did a few spot checks, and everything checked out. Hog Farm Bacon 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Images - all check out license-wise
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Gog the Mild ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Β« Return to A-Class review list
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
United States war plans (1945β1950)Β ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This is a new article, one that has been on my mind for some time. Some articles referenced the war plans of this period, but there was nothing on them. Put simply, the American planners were unable to come up with anything practical, but the work done was not wasted; what was fantastic in the 1940s would ultimately become very real in the 1950s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Surprised that there hasn't been more interest in this article. I'd like to offer the following comments:
Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks interesting. There's another article above this one on my reviewing list, but I'll get to it fairly soon. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Very good work. Not much to gripe about here at all. Hog Farm Bacon 03:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825 β’ Talk 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
With A2, I think there's a slight tendency to use excessive detail. See below for an example that stood out to me in Broiler:
I don't think the detail I've struck through adds anything to the reader's understanding of US war plans 45β50. There are a few other examples of this (or information which could be simplified & condensed), but on balance I think the article still meets A2 as the majority of detail helps build a comprehensive picture of the plans.
With A4, the main issue is comma use/clause construction, which in some places affects legibility and creates ambiguity. Serial commas aren't consistently used throughout the article ( MOS:SERIAL). I tried to avoid adding or removing many commas myself as I didn't want to force a specific style upon you. There appears to be some comma overuse and splicing, which I think would be easier to sort out once the serial commas are standardised. Perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors will have someone who's more qualified than me to look at this. I don't think the subject matter helps, as summing up detailed, technical plans encourages detailed, list-like prose β the hardest kind to write clearly and accurately! The writing itself is concise and mostly clear, and I don't think the article would "require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", so it meets A4. I hope some you find some of my thoughts helpful, and would be interested to hear if you or other editors disagree/take a different view. Cheers, Jr8825 β’ Talk 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to get to this in the morning. Hog Farm Bacon 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Title page of the Sandia National Laboratory Source appears to suggest that the title uses the spelling Mark 4 Bomb, not Mk4 Bomb, although the latter is used frequently in the PDF text.
All sources are from high-quality sources. I did a few spot checks, and everything checked out. Hog Farm Bacon 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Images - all check out license-wise