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
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)