The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:57, 29 August 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was extremely popular when it appeared on the front page as a DYK. I think it will prove equally popular as a TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. The Germany subsection seems a bit long, but I don't really know how you'd subdivide it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotcheck not done

• "The cellar itself was not blown up, because this would have meant the destruction of the Church and Castle located above the cellar." - source?
  • Added by a German Wikipedian. Removed until I find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hinsley et al: British Intelligence is a title, not a series; what is current presented as the title is the volume name
  • Very well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mahoney: don't need spaces around dash in dates, don't need both "thesis" and "dissertation", and how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Mahoney on the shelf at the ADFA library. It was academically reviewed and is widely cited in the literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Here are my copyedits. Good work. --John (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your edits and your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Haigerloch Castle Hill needs alt text
• all other toolchecks are green (NFA)
• "(according to American physicists at the University of California, Berkeley who knew the leading Japanese physicists personally)" - I think you could integrate this into the prose, ie "According to American physicists..."
• "first" and "first" The German nuclear energy project seemed very different; German scientists had reputations as leaders in the field, and the fear of Germany developing nuclear weapons first was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Manhattan Project in the first place. Perhaps delete "in the first place", it seems redundant.
• "Norwegian saboteurs and Allied bombers attacked heavy-water infrastructure in German-occupied Norway" seems an inordinately long link, could you link "attacked" or something?
• Pash should be linked at first mention in the body
• General (United States), OSRD, Stadtilm, Reichsforschungsrat, and Erich Bagge are overlinked
• In the Italy section, it would add necessary context to explain that Badoglio headed up the Italian government that had surrendered and joined the Allies.
• (National Research Council) should be added at first mention
• "an African-American truck company" - what is the underlying context? Why mention this aspect of the company?
  • I think it makes it easier for the reader to visualise. It was probably written at a time when there was another round of criticism of the "whitewashing" of American history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "less its Company B, which would be commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur White." This is unclear, was Company B commanded by LtCol White, or the 1269th?
• citations are not in numerical order here, 84,68,85.
• "a separate Manhattan Project organized by Groves" - I thought there was only one Manhattan Project? Or was this a separate team from the Project?
  • A word was missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• suggest refbegin and refend templates for the Refences list
• no dash issues (NFA)

Great article as always, just needs a few small tweaks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your review! All your points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, supporting now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

• 2 AIP source links have been dead - replaced them (please check image sources).
• AIP sells those images apparently, but as (clearly) PD-US their usage should be OK here.

All images are PD-US or "own work" with complete source and author information - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.