Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Mosaic/archive1

Support from HAL

• "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped would be achieved in 1957" --> something more concise like "before Britain had developed a hydrogen bomb, which it was hoped to achieve in 1957" or "to complete in 1957", etc.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "type of nuclear device in which" - is "to which" more appropriate?

  "in which" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "thus increasing the rate of fission and therefore the yield" - I am a fan of the occasional "thus" but I find it a bit clunky to have "thus" and "therefore" in the same clause.

  Deleted "thus". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• The caption "The sloop HMAS Warrego carried out a hydrographic survey of the Montebello Islands" needs a full stop. I also suggest the slightly more concise "Warrego conducted". There's the same issue with the following two captions as well.

  Added full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "but the boosting effect of the lithium deuteride had been negligible because the process had not been fully understood" - How was it not fully understood?

  Going beyond the source here, so deleted the final clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• "British official historian, Lorna Arnold" Official in what regard? Was she associated with a specific department?

  An official historian is one engaged by the government to write history, and is given access to all the documents (which may not be declassified for many years). Arnold was the historian at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• What's the rational between the yellow headers in the table? I might understand if it was purely alternating, but yield is skipped.

  The table was generated by another editor with a bot. I may have deleted an unnecessary column. Adjusted the colouring. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That's all. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 23:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Shape: A pyramid-shaped obelisk ... Those are two mutually exclusive shapes, in my mind. "Pyramid-topped obelisk" I can envision.

  I fear we shall never be in concord about this. Deleted "pyramid-shaped" and linked obelisk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Define acronym: They were augmented by RAN vessels, designated ... I'm guessing Royal Australian Navy, but other readers may benefit from the acronym being defined here or earlier (I looked but could not find it defined above)

  It is there in the Preparations section. "It was agreed that a Royal Australian Navy (RAN) frigate would act as a weather ship for the test series." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Clarify ...of works to schedule a scientific rehearsal for 27 April. A second scientific rehearsal was held on.... I've never heard the term "scientific rehearsal" before. "Dress" is about the only modifier before "rehearsal" that will be familiar to readers, I think. Do the sources define what it is? I'm guessing some kind of partial rehearsal that omits .... what?

  I have added a brief explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Plainer wording: Because fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, in the light of Beale's announcement that G2 would be smaller than G1, an impression was generated that something had gone horribly wrong. That is a tough sentence to parse :-) Both "Because fallout .." and "in light of Beales" are reasons. Which one of the two (or both?) casued the "impression" to be "generated". Maybe The fallout detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations caused Beale to decide to make G2 smaller than G1. This change in plans generated the impression among [who?] that something had gone horribly wrong.

  Re-worded: "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1, so when fallout was detected over northern Australia by monitoring stations, newspapers reported something must have gone horribly wrong." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Alphabetize categories? Not sure if that is required for FA or not. When there are more than 10 or so categories, it does help readers hunt for categories. But this article only has 5 cats, so maybe not important.

  MOS:CATORDER: "Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."

• I ran the "Show Ref Check" tool, and it flagged about six sources as "Missing archive link", but I checked one of them, and it had an "access-date" field, so I'm not sure why there is no archive link yet. Maybe the bot hasn't come around the the article yet.

• I don't think it adds them when the URL is not dead (yet). I ran the IABot to add them manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Summary Table: I like it: very useful presentation of data. I wish more articles had tables like that (vs 100% prose).

  All the nuclear test articles have them. Another user generated them with a bot.

• Clarify In fact, since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. Good weather conditions alone were insufficient because the meteorologists had to accurately forecast them. That might be a bit confusing to some readers. Maybe The tests could only proceed on days when meteorologists forecast good weather and the weather was actually good. Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions (although several days were good, they were not forecast to be good). Or something like that.

  Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• InfoBox: Having two images (movie & map) at the top of the InfoBox will push important InfoBox text (country, etc) way down, especially on smaller devices. Consider moving one of the two (map or movie) down to bottom of InfoBox, or just below the InfoBox, or even lower in the article. Not a show-stopper for FA, just a suggestion.

  I considered removing the map below the infobox, but this would not address this concern. Moving the map down isn't an option. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Was the promise kept? ... but promised that the yield of neither test would exceed two and a half times that of the Operation Hurricane test. After reading that sentence, EVERY reader will want to know if the promised limit was respected. Even if it is stated later in this article, can you add a footnote to this sentence that states something like: "The yields of G1 and G2 were less than 2.5 times the Hurricane test" or conversely "The yields of G1 and G2 vastly exceeded 2.5x the yield of the Hurricane test" ? Even if readers have the time to search for the answer, that kind of detail is hard to locate in an article. A footnote here will make many readers happy.

  It's complicated. As the article (and the lead) relates, the limit was changed, and there were unsubstantiated allegations that the yield was higher than reported. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• More precise wording The second test in the series, G2, was the largest ever conducted in Australia. Some readers may think that means "... was the largest test at the time (but bigger tests came later)". Consider The second test in the series, G2, remains the largest ever conducted in Australia.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Define/clarify: In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists ... Many reader will not know that "thermonuclear " in this context is a synonym for "hydrogen bomb" (used earlier in the article). Consider helping the reader make the connection.

  Not quite sure how to do this. Added "(thermonuclear)" after the previous mention of the hydrogen bomb. There are some nuances here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• More encyclopedic wording? In thinking about thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ... The first phrase "In thinking about.." is a bit vulgar/idiomatic. Maybe When considering thermonuclear designs, the British scientists at the ...

• Then we will have "considered" twice in the one sentence, which will read awkwardly. Changed to "contemplating". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• That's all I got. Great article!! Glad to hear the wildlife returned. Noleander (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Noleander (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Coord note

This nomination has been stalled without additional comments for a month; unless there's significant action in the next few days it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

HF

I will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 20:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The United States Air Force (USAF) provided a pair of C-118 Liftmasters to collect radioactive samples" - do any of the sources give any additional detail as to the rationale/involvement of this, given that the US at the time was trying to exit nuclear assistance with the UK?

  The USAF wanted to monitor the British tests with their own aircraft in order to practice their techniques for monitoring Soviet ones. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• "Kainikara, Sanu; Burns, David, eds. (2016). "RAAF Involvement in Nuclear Testing" (PDF). Pathfinder. 7 (232). Air Power Development Centre: 145–148. ISSN 1836-7712. Retrieved 5 April 2020." - source link for me does not work but does. Is this an actual link migration or just certain content/servers not being accessible from a computer in the mainland US?

  Migration. I have updated the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "There was a cyclone three days later" - is this particularly relevant? A lot of the stuff for Mosaic doesn't seem to have arrived by 5 March, and this doesn't seem to have affected the test any

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "There had been protests in Perth at the test series," - is OK in Australian English? I'm reading this as the protests were being aimed against the test series, but this phrasing for that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in AmEng

  I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "without exceeding the planned 80 kilotonnes of TNT (330 TJ) limit agreed to with the AWTSC, and one of 100 kilotonnes of TNT (420 TJ) was used for safety purposes" - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, although this may be my lack of familiarity with nuclear weapons. If the limit was 80 kiltonnes of TNT, why was something of 100 kilotonnes of TNT used for safety?

  To provide an extra margin. I have re-worded this slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• " Since Narvik had arrived in March, not a single day had been suitable. " is awkward with the latter half of "Since Narvik had arrived in March, no day had met both conditions; although several days were suitable, they had not been forecast to be."; I'd remove the former and keep the latter

  Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• "The island remained a prohibited area until 1992" - I'm struggling to find this on the live or archive version of the website used as a citation but I might just be missing where it is? I'm also struggling to find the stuff about the animal relocation/eradication

  The site has changed. Added some new references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to me to be in fairly good shape, although I don't know enough about the specific subject matter of British nuclear testing in Australia to be able to identify any hidden neutrality or selective source use issues. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Anything yet on that first comment? Hog Farm _Talk 14:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It took a bit of finding. Lots of sources noted the presence, but I eventually located the rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Graham Beards

Could we say what is meant by "shots" and what "film badges" are? Also, I would have liked to have learnt more about the origins and significance of the cats and rats, without having to go to the citation. Graham Beards (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Added links to shot and what film badge. Added information about the origin of the cats and rats. There's been a lot of shipwrecks in the Montebello Islands; the first was recorded in 1622. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Graham Beards (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Is it just the website not being searchable, or why does #22 not mention cable? #26 is not paywalled. What does #50 support? #63 seems to have a stray }. #68 is broken. Sources seem consistently formatted and reliable, although I can't speak about any NPOV aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• fn 22: Arnold and Smith say that Eden's message was a cable. I assumed that Menzies response was the same, and it probably was, but I have switched to a more neutral wording, hewing to the newspaper source. The primary source is in NAA A646 R084/001 and I could check it if you feel that would be worthwhile. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
• Removed |url-access=subscription from fn 26
• fn 50 says: "Mr. Beale announced that a smaller device would be detonated in a few weeks" which helps support "Beale had announced that the G2 test was going to be smaller than G1"
• Removed stray } from fn 63
• Fn 68 seems to have moved (in the last two weeks!) Updated, although it could be that the new link is an error

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, does Hawkeye's response fully address your concerns? FrB.TG (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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