Talk:British nuclear tests at Maralinga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	British nuclear tests at Maralinga has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 10, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed November 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force British military history task force WikiProject Australia / History / South Australia      (Rated GA-Class) Portal British nuclear tests at Maralinga is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Environment (Rated GA-Class) Portal This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Problems Test Coordinates

There seem to be some problems with the Coordinates given for some of the nuclear tests at Maralinga.

Kite - 28.89° S 131.648° E, These coordinates put this site 110 Km due north of the One Tree and Marcoo tests. The area does not seem to have been disturbed, there are no signs of any monitoring stations or roads as found to the south. The lattitude may be a degree off. The original referenced source confirms these coordinates but I think corroboration is needed.

[Fixed] Breakaway - 29.895° S 29.895° E, These coordinates are a typo. They place the test in South Africa!! The original referenced source gives this longitude 131.604 E

I recommend viewing these locations in Google earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.30 (talk • contribs)

Well spotted!

Regarding Kite, I think that one of the Patterson documents (possibly the conference presentation) includes a map of the site with test locations highlighted. How does this compare with the coords? Jakew 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had a look around and found this: http://www.mapw.org.au/conferences/mapw2000/papers/parkinson.html

This might be the conference paper you were thinking of. It has maps of the test sites and puts the kite test much closer to the others. I'll try to work them out on google earth and then post them here.

The Map matches the road patterns and confirms the "good" site coordinate we have already. It places the Kite test on the road, south west from the One-Tree test. The Coordinates for the site are close to 29°52'52.88"S, 131°39'10.10"E, If I have done my maths right this link should match those coordinates. (29.88° S 131.652° E)

A more exact location would be better before we change the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.30 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, yes, that's the paper I meant. How embarrassing that I got the name of the author wrong!

I feel very uncomfortable about changing the article. Original research is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I think that we need to find a source giving the correct location instead. As a last resort, I imagine that the Royal Commission's report ought to include it. I'd check myself, but only a paper copy seems to exist, and NSW is a long way for me to travel! Jakew 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I could look that up. I live an hour south of Sydney. I'm a little busy in the next few days but I'll look into it. Have you any specific information about the royal commision report and where it is? (Mckinlayr 08:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

According to the NAA's CA 3993 record ("Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia During the 1950s and 1960s"), the documents are held at head office in NSW. That would be: 120 Miller Road, CHESTER HILL, NSW 2162, Tel: (02) 9645 0110, Fax: (02) 9645 0108. (Having said that, other records indicate that they might be in Canberra. Probably best to check. I think you need to order the documents in advance anyway.) Jakew 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Parkinson takes his map of the sites from page 9 this article: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/TECHREPT/arl070_pt1.pdf

The second half of the article and references are in a seperate file: http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/TECHREPT/arl070_pt2.pdf

You can find both files under 1985 on http://www.arpansa.gov.au/techrpt.htm

It includes a scale on the map and marks out key features. The map may have been made from on ground measurements by the author, I can't find a specific reference for it. I guess the only way would be to search through each reference individually. (Mckinlayr 10:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

This document from the has a map of the site on page 28 : http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/TECHREPT/arl005.pdf I guess now I just have to look for common entries in the references of both papers and perhaps find the right data. (Mckinlayr 10:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Last for tonight, Chapter 1 of this report contains new maps of the site. http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/publications/maralinga.htm

Oddly, the relative positions of the Kite and Tadje seem to have shifted in this newer map, in the older maps Tadje was to the south west of kite along the road. In this document Kite is shown to be east of the road and directly in line with Tadje. Perhaps these were from different surveys or maybe errors in either document. (Mckinlayr 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Nice work. Interesting observation about the relative positions. I should think that this isn't a major problem, as long as we cite what source we use and, ideally, mention the differences in a footnote. I'd be inclined to trust the Royal Commission's data, since they were able to get the UK gov't to supply the original information, and didn't have to rely upon guesswork. Jakew 11:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

A good start, but there are some irregularities to be ironed out and some skinny parts need reinforcing.

• The years of usage isn’t mentioned in the lead which is rather strange. The Royal Commission is also not mentioned which is unusual and victims’ rights campaigning isn’t mentioned which is unusual
• Date format is not consistent, “October 3” and then “15 October”
• I don’t think the alleged impact of the tests on aborigines should be in the historical context. It should be in the aftermath type sections
• Having a big blockquote as the first thing in the paragraph seems rather POV, in that it headlines the section with emotive POV
• Royal Commision is mentioned in the major test section but the name of the RC is not mentioned. Some paras are short and should be integrated
• What is Dr Roff’s full name and what is his field of research? It could be physics, military history or something else
• Need the events peceding the royal commission. Were their protests and lobbying before it? There should be a bit m,ore about Aboriginal issues in the aftermath section. There also needs to be more about the protest and compensation campaign I think.
• More info about the compensation campaign and the actual duties of the guinea pigs shouldbe included imho.

Apart from that the POV/RS/COPYVIO stuff is all fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and for the helpful suggestions. Think I've dealt with them all now... Johnfos 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. sorry I didn't notice that you edited it on the same day that I posted the comments. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)