Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-10 Graphite Reactor/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2017 [1].

---

X-10 Graphite Reactor

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The X-10 Project was the Manhattan Project effort to breed plutonium for atomic bombs using nuclear reactors. As part of this, an experimental reactor was built at the Clinton Engineer Works known as the X-10 Graphite Reactor. It operated for many years, and is now a tourist attraction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "but had sufficient confidence in his calculations that the water-cooled reactor would.": Would what?

  Well spotted., Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Your writing gets better all the time. It's really hard to make a subject like this concrete, the way you do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The article might have been nominated earlier, but the US National Parks Service website suddenly went down in January. It's back now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• What was the appeal of Oak Ridge? Cheap TVA power?

  Several things. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• He reasoned that it would primarily be a research and educational facility, and that expertise was to be found at the Metallurgical Laboratory. Compton was shocked.[22] The Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the University of Chicago, so the university would be operating an industrial facility 500 miles (800 km) from its main campus. Can you fold the bit about Compton being shocked into one of the other sentences?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I see Arthur, that while I was gone Is there a missing comma after "see"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cast uranium billets came from Metal Hydrides, Mallinckrodt and other suppliers. These were extruded into cylindrical slugs, and canned by Alcoa, which started production on June 14, 1943.[37] The fuel slugs were canned primarily to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, but also to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. The cladding had to transmit heat but not absorb too many neutrons. Aluminum was chosen. reword this

  What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The order of these sentences isn't logical and reads awkwardly. Tell the reader much earlier that aluminum was chosen because of X & Y and then get into who and when. Except in dialog, three-word sentences are best avoided as they can usually be integrated into the sentences around them where things will flow better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Okay. The text now reads The fuel slugs were canned to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, and to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. Aluminum was chosen as it transmitted heat but did not absorb too many neutrons. Alcoa started canning on June 14, 1943. General Electric and the Metallurgical Laboratory developed a new welding technique to seal the cans airtight, and the equipment for this was installed in the production line at Alcoa in October 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, operations did not detect the effect of the neutron poison Operations?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• During 2015 tours were part of a general three-hour tour of the Clinton Engineer Works facilities, and were conducted on Mondays through Fridays at noon, from June 4 to September 30, except on July 4 and 5. Not really relevant. Best if handled in an external link to the Museum.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Several overlinks.

  Rempved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Financed through the Belgian uranium export tax with the help of British experts Financed or built with the help of British experts?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Support and source review I reviewed this article closely at GAN and Milhist A-Class and have reviewed all subsequent edits, including those made during this review. I believe it meets the FA criteria. I have also checked the sources, and believe they are of a high standard and are consistently formatted. I have spotchecked several of the citations and they check out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I'll comment as I read:

• "At the time only such minute quantities of plutonium-239 had been produced, in cyclotrons, and it was not possible to produce a sufficiently large quantity that way." maybe "At the time plutonium-239 had only been produced using cyclotrons, and it was not possible to produce exploitable quantities that way." or something

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• "(available from the Tennesse Valley Authority]])" an error here

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Compton and the staff at the Metallurgical Laboratory then reopened the question of building the plutonium semiworks at Argonne. But the engineers and management of DuPont disagreed" -- did they disagree with reopening a question?

  In fact, yes, but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• " especially to the research staff from the Metallurgical Laboratory, whom they feared would attempt to interfere unduly." -- they felt the research staff would interfere, or they felt they would be interfered with?

  Yes agian; re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think that heavy water and graphite are neutron moderators is mentioned too late. This should be introduced then discussed (briefly), at the moment it's split in a strange way over the first paragraph of "Design"

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the helium coolant is the gas rather than liquid? It should probably be explcitly stated. If the liquid adding it's boiling point would make it clear to even lay people that a liquid-helium cooled system would pose a greater engineering challenge than a water cooled system.

  Gaseous helium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• "This reactor only generated up to 200 W, but it demonstrated that k was higher than anticipated." -- mention that Chicago Pile-1 used graphite as a moderator.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• "to provide quantities of plutonium" maybe "by providing quantities of plutonium"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article Bismuth phosphate process does nothing to help me understand what at all is involved in the separation process. Is a one or two sentence note possible that discusses this?
• This is only a suggestion, but a one sentence explanation of the function of a control rod would be valuable.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Where was the xenon-135 found? In the graphite?

  No, it's a fission product produced by irradiating the uranium fuel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is the X-10 chemical separation plant outside the scope of this article?

  It is within the scope of this article. I did not think the article would be comprehensible (or comprehended) without it. I also wanted the articles to cover the entire Manhattan Project; X-10 Project is covered by Metallurgical Laboratory, X-10 Graphite Reactor, Chicago Pile-1 and Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  This is what I thought. In that case I think the information on the actual separation process itself needs some expansion in the article. Not much (two sentences?) but at the moment it's a black box, and the Bismuth phosphate process article (as I mentioned above) doesn't provide much information. -- Shudde ^talk 08:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  I don't have my books with me, but I have had a good at expanding the Bismuth phosphate process article a little. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's more detail than I needed but it's great that it's been expanded that much. -- Shudde ^talk 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the lead last and am happy with it. I have not checked the infoboxes or captions. Overall an impressive and interesting article. Most of my comments are relatively minor and hopefully shouldn't be hard to address. Thanks for the fascinating read. -- Shudde ^talk 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything is addressed so I'm happy to add my support. -- Shudde ^talk 10:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Closing comment': There is one instance of refs not being in numerical order, which I tweaked, but if it was deliberate, feel free to revert. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2017 (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. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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