Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trinity test

Trinity test

I find this article very well written and meticulously cited. While it is a bit on the short side, there are exemplary pictures that add substantially to the content of the article. Moreover, this was a significant historical event and should be given due notice. Eszett 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No "after" pictures of ground zero.
  2. No mention is made of instrumentation used to record the test.
  3. You really should work a link to rainout into the last paragraph of the "preparing the test" section.
  4. No mention is made of the actual yield.
  5. No mention is made of the window-breaking effects of the explosion.
  6. No mention is made of the reaction of area residents to the explosion.
  7. No mention is made of the fallout effects of the test (ruined photographic plates in New York, for example).

  --Carnildo 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re #1, The article already had a aerial photo from 1945, and a photo of the site today. I've added a 1945 photo of two men standing in the crater.--Bcrowell 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead section needs to be lengthened and better written. --Oldak Quill 11:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object
  1. This sentence needs to be rewritten: "For the actual test, the plutonium-core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout." I didn't rewrite it myself, because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Maybe the thought would be clearer if it was broken up into several short sentences.
  2. I agree with Oldak that the lead should be longer.
  3. I agree with Carnildo about the need for more discussion of the instrumentation (even at a basic level: photography, seismometers, ...?) I'm guessing that the lack of information about the public reaction was because there was not much public reaction: the announcement came after the bombs were dropped on Japan, which meant the war was over, and people were a lot more likely to be interested in that than in the fact that the bombs had previously been tested. But anyhow, this should be made more clear in the article, and from the discussion on the article's talk page, it looks like that's going to require more research.

Carnildo's points 5, and 7 seem to hint that he has relevant information, so Carnildo, could you point us to the information? Re point 3, I assume there was no rainout, since the test was done in a desert, so I don't think the link would be relevant. Re point 7, I don't think it's physically plausible that this would have happened; this may be an urban folk tale.

This is a great article that's marred by only a few flaws, and I'd be happy to change my vote to support if the issues about the lead and the instrumentation were fixed.--Bcrowell 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was a book I read a few years ago called "The Day the Sun Rose Twice". I don't have access to it anymore -- those are just some of the things I remember from it. --Carnildo 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)