Talk:Manhattan Project feed materials program

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Gilbert Labine examines uranium ore at the Eldorado Mine

• ... that the Manhattan Project feed materials program used uranium ore from a mine near the Arctic Circle in Canada (pictured)? Source: https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/how-canada-supplied-uranium-for-the-manhattan-project-1.7402051
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jarrad Searby

Moved to mainspace by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 442 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC).

• This impressive article, moved to mainspace on 7 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. QPQ done. No copyvio issues. The hook is interesting, in the body, cited, and the citation checks out. The image is very nice and legible at low resolution. @Hawkeye7: could you clarify why the photo is the public domain in the US? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is in the public domain in Canada as it was not subject to Crown copyright, and is a photograph that was created prior to 1949, and the creator died in 1971. In US because first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Jeez Canadian photograph copyright is complex, look at this flowchart. As the photo's copyright in Canada is Creation + 50 years, it would've been in the public domain sometime in the year 1996, so URAA probably doesn't apply (I see you've edited your reply). I'll take your assessment in good faith. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  According to the flowchart, since it was created in 1936 by a known individual photographer, it entered into the PD in 1986, so URAA would have applied in 1996. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I couldn't add 50 to 36. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• I am quite okay with the hook running without the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have any worries about its PD status Tenpop421 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

ENGVAR

This article is listed as being in British English, but I think per MOS:TIES should be in American English. Any objection to switching it over? John (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly changed the article. John (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That is fine. You missed one; Americans use "aluminum" instead of "aluminium". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I wouldn't have reverted if I'd noticed this. It wasn't an error though; WP:ALUM applies on this chemistry-related article. John (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manhattan Project feed materials program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 04:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Initial review

Since this article is over 100,000 bytes, this GA review will necessarily take longer than usual. I will submit review comments as I have a chance to read it. There may be more than one set of comments (Review 1, Review 2, etc.) Djmaschek (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It is only 64 kB (10,587 words) "readable prose size" I have added this review to my watch list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Review 1

Please make that following edits or argue your case for not making the change. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Introduction, paragraph 3: "In 1941 ... flooded". It makes it seems as though the mine was deliberately flooded in 1941. I think it would be more accurate to write "By 1941 ... flooded" since the Congo mine was closed in 1937 and flooded over time. The Canadian mine closed in 1940 and flooded since then.

  Y Changed to "became flooded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• The US Army takes over, paragraph 1, sentence 2: "On 15 September". Add year (1942, I think).

  Y Yes. Added "1942". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Eldorado mine, last paragraph, sentence 1: "Shortly after to" > "Shortly after".

  Y Deleted stray word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Finished through Uranium procurement, Canada. Had to stop.

Review 2

@Hawkeye7: Please make the following edits or argue your case for not making the change. Thanks.

• Europe, paragraph 1, last sentence: "Groves had it shipped..." Please replace "it" with something more specific like "62 tonnes" or "the recovered refined uranium".

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Uranium refining and processing, Black oxide, paragraph 2, last sentence. "This crushed" > "This was crushed".

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Review finished.

Passed

The article meets the criteria for GA class. Djmaschek (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I listed it under Weapons, military equipment and programs. Djmaschek (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)