Talk:Hanford Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Hanford Site is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Editing

Hey, It's great that you guys are continually fixing this article and adding new stuff, but try to plan out your edits before you go into the edit screen. I'm seeing the the same people going back in more then five times to edit the article for the same thing over and over again when they could have just scanned the article, find what they are going to fix, go into the edit page, and then fixed all the things they wanted to fix in one single edit. Please try to limet the amount of times you go in to edit the article for the same or simular things. Brothejr (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel

Could someone add a google map to this? Thanks!

From the article: "Testing started on July 12, 1944, and the B-Reactor was charged with hotdog-size slugs of mixed U-235 and U-236 on September 13, 1944." This is probably incorrect, as U-236 has a half-life of a small fraction of a second; it is the nuclide that actually fissions in nuclear reactors and uranium-based nuclear weapons: {}^{235}_{92}\hbox{U}+{}^1_0\hbox{n}\to{}^{236}_{92}\hbox{U}\to \hbox{various} + (2\ \hbox{or}\ 3){}^1_0\hbox{n}. Perhaps it was U-238 that was mixed in with the U-235? That would make more sense, as {}^{238}_{92}\hbox{U}+{}^1_0\hbox{n}\to{}^{239}_{92}\hbox{U}\to{}^{239}_{93}\hbox{Np}+\hbox{e}^-+\overline{\nu}_\hbox{e}; {}^{239}_{93}\hbox{Np}\to{}^{239}_{94}\hbox{Pu}+\hbox{e}^-+\overline{\nu}_\hbox{e} is the series of reactions that is used in plutonium production.

  • Hmm, yeah, I'm betting that was supposed to be 238. I'm fairly sure the fuel they used was mostly U-238, in fact -- I don't believe the Hanford reactors used fuel which was enriched at all, because their enrichment efforts were directed at producing material for the Little Boy bomb exclusively. --Fastfission 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC
    • Fastfission: Actually, N reactor used slightly enriched fuel. Furthermore, Hanford plutonium was used in Fat Man, as Little Boy was exclusively uranium. --Woofles 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The fuels were unenriched in B, so there was no "mixed with..." --Woofles 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Add a reference to LIGO?

[edit] Missing Reference?

In the section titled, "Selecting the Hanford site" there is a reference to (Matthias 1987). This reference is not listed under the references.

Vjiper

Fixed. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HAER photos

There are a number of high-resolution photos of D reactor and related buildings in the 100-D area available from the Historic American Engineering Record collection in the Library of Congress. See [1] for the photos and some fairly involved historical descriptions of the functions of the buildings shown. There are also photos of the REDOX plant, and photos were apparently taken of B reactor but they are not yet digitized. 121a0012 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last reactor decommissioning date

Changed it from 1971 to 1987 because that's when N-Reactor was shut down. See http://www.hanford.gov/information/sitetours/?tour=100N .

[edit] duPont role

Although I don't have any published literature to cite relative to my notes on the ammonia-based cooling system on the Manhattan Project reactors, this information comes from personal conversations with my grandfather, A.G. (Tom) Lambert, who was a duPont engineer assigned to Hanford precisely because of his experience with high-horsepower electric motors as used in duPont's operation in Birmingham. Granddad was the named inventor on the patent (held by duPont) for the variable-speed motor control used on these motors. Boomer 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ammonia-based refrigeration

Deleted the following unreferenced material from the main text & reverted to the previous wording:

"As no one had ever built an industrial-scale reactor before, the scientists and the duPont engineering team were unsure how much heat would be generated by fission during normal operations. To provide the greatest margin of error, they concluded that they should use an ammonia-based refrigeration system to cool the reactors, which duPont engineers had successully employed at an industrial scale at other sites, such as their chemical plant in Birmingham AL."

Be happy to see it restored if you can provide a credible reference. Williamborg (Bill) 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ammonia cooling systems

Found a written source (Sanger) to back up what my Granddad had claimed. Boomer 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See you mean Working on the bomb : an oral history of WWII Hanford / written by S.L. Sanger; editor, Craig Wollner; Portland State University, Continuing Education Press, copyrighted 1995? I'll look at a copy tommorrow. I've reserved a copy from the local library and will get it tommorrow. Look forward to reading.
I see from your addition that the ammonia system intended to precool the water entering the core. Did this system actually get used? Williamborg (Bill) 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)that
I suspect it did, but was subsequently taken out of the cooling loop because it added unnecessary complexity. No factual backup for this statement though. My granddad was an interesting person to talk about with this stuff. Although I grew up next door to him, there was a very brief window between when I knew enough about the engineering to ask reasonable questions and his mind started to fail with Alzheimer's. When I first asked him about this stuff in the 1970s, he said that as far as he knew, most of his specific knowledge was still classified. I showed him diagrams in my books that discussed the principles, but his comment was that there's a world of difference between the theoretical stuff in a textbook and the real-world engineering problems they had to solve on site. It was a constant battle between the scientists and the duPont engineers on exactly that point. Apparently had the duPont engineers not put extra fuel element channels in the first reactors "just in case" and over the objections of the scientists, they would not have been able to overcome the poisoning problem without rebuilding the pile.
Another book you might be interested in is Thayer: "Management of the Hanford Engineer Works in World War II." My granddad was head of the engineering team responsible for the delivery of electrical power to Hanford, from Grand Coulee and Bonneville Dams to the operational buildings. I once gave him a tour of my place of business, and showed him one of the big Uninterruptable Power Systems. He remarked that they had a UPS at Hanford, but it was hydraulic. It consisted of a pump/generator system where water was pumped to a reservoir above the dam, which could be reversed and made to generate electricity if anything happened to the main powerhouse. He said the workers and the locals thought this system was for irrigation -- which indeed it was later used for -- but that it was constructed primarily as a backup source of power.
Granddad retired as the Electrical Superintendent of the duPont Belle Works (WV), which provided many of the engineers for Hanford because of their experience with very high pressure systems. Another accomplishment of the Belle team was the development of a schedule management system substantially the same as the Gantt chart.
So what is the protocol for including this kind of anecdotal information? Over the years, I've read most of the books which have to do with the Manhattan Project and with Hanford, and few include the kind of 'I was there' information that my Granddad relayed to me in a very few conversations? Boomer 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing! I think that your story of the conflict between the scientist and the engineers is fascinating (although I don't quite understand what the "poisoning problem" was exactly), and the fact about the backup power being misunderstood to be meant as an irrigation system. I hope some gets into the article. The article currently mentions "overcoming a poisoning problem" or something in a way that begs for explanation, IMHO. doncram (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just spent an hour reading through Working on the bomb : an oral history of WWII Hanford written by S.L. Sanger and seem to find no reference to use of ammonia cooling for the coolant water. And the standard Hanford design references do not mention it. Can you please direct us to the interview in Working on the bomb that you're citing in your reference? Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In my paperback version, it's on p70, last paragraph. This is the the chapter on Construction: "duPont called the reactors 'process units' and designed the three locations 100-B, 100-D and 100-F with the reactor building in each of the three complexes called '105 building.' Each 100 Area was about one-square mile in size and virtually identical, the only major difference being that D and F included refrigeration units for cooling the river water during the summer. While the book does not say that ammonia was used as the refrigerant, ammonia was the primary refrigerant medium for that period, and duPont was one of the largest producers of ammonina in the world (again, at their Belle Works). Boomer 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, just where you identified it. Good show. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this, as it seems to me to be highly specialized information that didn't belong in a general encyclopedia article. I reorganized the article to put the focus on general information about Hanford and make it more readable for the audience. I couldn't find a place for this fact about ammonia cooling. If we were to include all such facts about the scientific details of the operations at Hanford, the article would be 500 pages long. If others disagree with me on this point, feel free to restore this fact and the others I deleted, but please try to find a suitable subhead for them. All due respect, of course, to your grandfather's contribution to Hanford, I just didn't feel like it belonged here. A separate article on ammonia cooling might be in order. Or perhaps this belongs in an article like Nuclear technologyNorthwesterner1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, found a way to put this back in by creating a new subhead for "scientific innovations." Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallons to Cubic Meters?

A number of statements say something like, "More than 40 billion US gallons (151 million m³) of contaminated water were dump". Why is it cubic meters and not liters? If it was xxx million cubic feet (151 million m³), then it would make sense but not gallons to cubic meters. Fanra 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, I can answer my own question. It seems that the gallon is technically a measure of volume, not of liquid. Fanra 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] duPont reluctance

Put back note that duPont was a reluctant participant in this project. For over 100 years, duPont had been criticized for making huge profits supplying gun powder and explosives, earning the title "Merchants of Death." see Sanger "Working on the Bomb" p3. Boomer 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waste disposal site

Is the Hanford Reservation still used as a disposal site for radioactive waste from other sites? I imagine it is, there's nowhere better... hmmm, but then that's logical, and this (;-> is politics.

As an example of what I mean, the Trojan NPP pressure vessel is buried at Hanford.

If this is a continuing activity, the article should mention it. Andrewa 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving toward Good Article status

I would like to move this toward Good article status. What do you think? Before I put it up for nomination, how do you think it can be improved? Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the More sources tag after I saw your interest in moving the article towards GA. An article that has whole sections with no citations will not pass WP:GAN, and many more citations are needed in this article to support what is being said. For a potentially controversial topic such as this, I would aim at one citation per paragraph. Please see WP:When to cite for guidance. Johnfos (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take a stab at adding more citations tomorrow Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Very excited to see others interested in improving this article. I have a little experience with GAN, and am pretty good at tracking down sources. I'll try to help as well. -Pete (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. Let's go for it! I added more citations throughout. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the NRHP docs, mentioned below, could help in the tagged section or elsewhere. doncram (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is good and about an important site. Technically though, in my opinion, for this to be rated above STUB status within WP:NRHP in particular, I personally think it needs to mention year of listing in the National Register of Historic Places and to describe what was found to be significant about the site, in the official recognition. I am commenting in response to Northwesterner1's request to the Assessment section of WP:NRHP. doncram (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a new section on the Native American history of the site, and I noted the three NHRPs, as well as the year of listing for each. Personally, I don't think the NHRP documents and photos should be necessary for good article status in Wikipedia at large. Hanford's encyclopedic value rests on its contribution to WWII and Cold War history and its current role as a major environmental cleanup site. The NHRP listings are a minor detail in the context of this overall value. (Note that there is also a separate article for the B reactor, where more NHRP information could be included.) So I don't plan to track down these documents myself, but I would welcome the addition if anyone more interested in that side of things wanted to take the lead. I wonder if the Registered Historic Places in Washington tag and the NHRP assessment should be removed from this article, as they really belong primarily with the B reactor article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what you added about the 3 NRHPs helps the article, thanks. About getting and using the NRHP docs, that was a suggestion, you don't have to. I personally have found them usually to be very valuable, but without them in hand it is not helpful to argue whether they would or would not be helpful sources in this case. Yes, the notability of the site is well established. I do think the Registered Historic Places tag should be kept with this article, and the article should stay in WP:NRHP. I agree the NRHP recognition per se is a minor part of the importance of the Hanford site, and WP:NRHP "technical" concerns ought not interfere with advancement of this article's ratings. doncram (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know of the other article, now titled B-Reactor (shouldn't it be Hanford B Reactor?). I wonder, couldn't this article be improved by making a section on the Hanford B Reactor, and merge in (and edit mercilessly if you) want the material from the other article. It seems the B Reactor, as the first plutonium reactor in the world, is a big part of the Hanford Site story, and a bit more on it would be warranted here, and yet there is not so much that it really deserves to be a separate article. If you think it needs to be a separate article, though, shouldn't it be developed at the same time, and coordinated from within this article, i.e. indicated as the "Main article" from the section within this article where B reactor is covered? doncram (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the footnotes and the feedback! I would hesitate to merge B-Reactor in with this article, as the B reactor really is notable in its own right. News stories have been written about it alone, and there is currently a group dedicated solely to its preservation. That debate may be in the news in the coming years, and the B-Reactor article might be expanded in the future. Also, if someone wanted to do some NHRP work on it, it could go there without swamping the Hanford article. For now, I will add a "Main article" link and add more about the B-reactor here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that there is also a separate article about the N-Reactor which is probably the second most historically notable reactor at Hanford. That one's just a stub, however. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's ready. I'm going to put this forward for GA nomination. Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage of 3 NRHPS

Hanford Island Archeological Site
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Nearest city: Richland, Washington
Added to NRHP: August 28, 1976
NRHP Reference#: 76001870[1]
Governing body: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Hanford North Archeological District
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Nearest city: Richland, Washington
Added to NRHP: August 28, 1976
NRHP Reference#: 76001871[1]
Governing body: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Hanford B Reactor
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Hanford Site (Washington)
Hanford Site
Nearest city: Richland, Washington
Coordinates: 46°37′49.63″N 119°38′46.14″W / 46.6304528, -119.64615Coordinates: 46°37′49.63″N 119°38′46.14″W / 46.6304528, -119.64615
Built/Founded: 1945
Architect: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Architectural style(s): No Style Listed
Added to NRHP: April 03, 1992
NRHP Reference#: 92000245[1]
Governing body: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Three NRHPs seem relevant to the article. One is the Hanford B Reactor itself. It should be mentioned that this was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. Two are archaeological sites. Depending on where they are located within the large Hanford site, those two could possibly be covered more in the Hanford National Monument article (but that covers only part of the Hanford site). However I think all three should be at least mentioned in the Hanford site article.

Below is limited information about them in NRHP infobox format. You could consider using the infoboxes in the article or not. The Hanford B Reactor infobox here displays a map showing the location within the state which can be kept, or replaced by a photo, or turned off by deleting the map-relevant info in the infobox.

Since you are bringing the article towards Good and then Featured status, you will probably want to collect the official NRHP documents and photos about these sites, probably titled a NRHP Inventory/Nomination document and photos, which you can get by request to the National Register Reference Team. Send email request to nr_reference at nps.gov, give your postal address to receive a hard copy. For archeological sites, sometimes only versions redacted to conceal location are made available.

The NRHP document about the Hanford B Reactor will have helpful description about the area covered in the NRHP. I assume the entire huge Hanford Site is not a NRHP, just a plot of land that includes the B reactor. Hope this helps, doncram (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, i requested copies of the NRHP text/photo docs for myself, and received confirmation that those should be sent to me (reportedly running 2-3 weeks time to receive now). I expect they will have additional useful information for the article, but we'll just have to see. doncram (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! It will be interesting to see what they turn up. It seems like the docs will be very helpful for B-Reactor also, and the archaeological sites may have useful information for Yakama, Wanapum, and related articles. Appreciate your expertise on this. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

I'm beginning my review today. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that this is my first GA review. I have considerable general experience as an editor and about six months' experience as an LoCE editor, so I am not a complete newbie. On my first full read-through, my impression is that this article is GA quality already. It seems factually accurate and verifiable, is broad in coverage, has no POV problems, is stable, and seems well-illustrated. It is generally well-written, though I see a few Manual of Style problems that I will soon discuss in detail and for which I will suggest fixes. I may add some other thoughts as go along. Finetooth (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style issues:

  • Y Done To avoid separation by line-wrap on various screen displays, numbers and units should be nailed together by no-break codes or conversion templates (which not only convert from imperial to metric but hold all the parts together visually). I've added a conversion template to the first sentence of the Geography section as an example. A versatile conversion template lives here.
  • Y Done I am not sure that the title, "Hanford Site", should have a capital "S" on "Site". Is that its official formal name? I notice that in the first caption and elsewhere in the text of the article that the site is referred to as "Hanford site", with a small "s". In the lead, "Trinity site" is mentioned, again with a small "s". Unless good support can be found for the big "S", I would suggest changing the title to "Hanford site" or "Hanford nuclear site". Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done It's not possible to fix all of the number and unit pairs with conversion templates. I see quite a few scattered here and there throughout the article that should be fixed by inserting   between the number and the unit. By way of example, I have inserted a no-break code between "19,000" and "pages" in the Environmental concerns section. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Full dates such as September 13, 1944, should be autoformatted to display on viewer screens in their preferred format. I autoformatted the above date in the Plutonium production section as an example.
  • Y Done "Facility" is a word that comes close to jargon. I know it is often used to mean "manufacturing plant" or "works" or "production plant" and a number of other things, but it also means "restroom". I'm not sure what word(s) or phrase(s) to suggest in the context of this article, but perhaps "nuclear production complex" might be a better way to describe Hanford than "facility". I would like that phrase better, for example, in the first sentence of the lead. In the sentence, "By 1963, the Hanford site was home to nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River, five reprocessing facilities on the central plateau, and more than 900 support facilities and radiological laboratories around the site" it might be better to say "five reprocessing plants" and "more than 900 support buildings and radiological laboratories". I'm not sure if "plants" or "buildings" is factually correct, but that gets back to my concern about "facility". What does "facility" mean? It would be better, methinks, to be more specific in instances where that is possible.
  • Y Done In the section called Cold War expansion, I see an unconverted "64 metric tons" that should be expressed in, probably, short tons as well. Since the imperial units come first in this article, the number should appear as short tons converted to metric. This brings up another question. In Plutonium production, I see "Two hundred tons of uranium slugs..." Not only is this not converted, it's not clear whether these are short tons, metric tons, or possibly long tons. These numbers and units should be verified and clarified. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done Citation 37 looks odd sitting all by itself below the table. I think this should be fixed, but I don't know offhand how to fix it. How about this header?
  • Y Done It's not necessary to put "US" in front of dollar amounts such as $10 billion since this is a U.S. article. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I'll add a thought here in response to Johnfos's suggestion about the lead, which I've not been ignoring but simply putting off until I got my other thoughts collected and set down here. I wasn't bothered by the lead on my first read-through, but I agree that it could be expanded to include material it doesn't mention but which is included in the main text. The lead is just an abstract or summary, really, and I find it easier to write leads last even though they appear first. To expand this particular lead, I'd think about adding brief mention of scientific innovations such as Teflon, pollution of the Columbia, and perhaps the early history. These get treatment in the main text but are not mentioned in the lead. The MOS suggests "up to" four paragraphs in the lead, but that's not fixed in stone. Maybe three would be enough here. The number of paragraphs is not as important as provided a clear, succinct overview that invites the reader into the rest of the article. Finetooth (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've shot all the arrows in my quiver. Those of you who have worked on this article have done a nice job. I'll be checking back every now and again to see how things are going, and I'd be happy to answer questions or to clarify anything I've said. Finetooth (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working conversation on the GA review

Hi, thanks for doing the review. I will get to work on these MOS issues over the next few days and User:Peteforsyth has expressed interest in jumping in as well. I could use some help on a few of these points:
  • How do other editors feel about the title? "Hanford site" with the lower-case "s" is used in most of the newspaper and book sources, and I think it improves the flow when used in the body of the article. So I like "Hanford site." But the official Hanford website of the Department of Energy regularly uses the capital "Hanford Site." If we do move the article to "Hanford site" or "Hanford nuclear site," can I get some help with that? I've never moved an article before and I don't want to do anything wrong in the process.
  • I take your point about "facility," and I think we can get around it most places in the articles. However, I'm struggling with the lede. "Nuclear productions complex" seems to imply that Hanford is still producing plutonium. We could say "WAS a nuclear productions complex" but that seems to imply that the site's notability lies in the past. The problem is that Hanford's primary mission has changed over the years from nuclear production to nuclear cleanup. There also has been a lot of other stuff going on there over the years (experimental nuclear research, commercial nuclear power production, etc.) The only constant is that it has been a government site. So what is the best term that encompasses all of these functions? Other suggestions on how to get around "facility"?
I understand your problem with replacing "facility" in the lede, and I've been unable to think of a nifty solution. "Complex" is vague, too, I must admit, and as jargonish as "facility". Groan. Perhaps "facility" is best in the lede if no one can come up with something better. It would still be good to replace "facility" with a more exact word or phrase elsewhere in the article insofar as that is possible. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe instead of "WAS a nuclear productions complex" you could use "is a former nuclear productions complex"? Or maybe "decommissioned" is better than "former"? Like "is a decommissioned nuclear productions complex that is undergoing cleanup"? Murderbike (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Murderbike, I think your phrase, "is a decommissioned nuclear productions complex that is undergoing cleanup" is better than any other suggestion so far. Maybe the opening sentence could say, "The Hanford Site in south-central Washington is a decommissioned nuclear productions complex that is undergoing cleanup by its owner, the United States government." Maybe more qualifiers (partly decommissioned? nuclear productions and research complex?) need to be added to this sentence. Finetooth (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I like this, good suggestion Murderbike. I think the addition of "is undergoing cleanup" might be getting a little wordy though. As long as we get to the cleanup relatively quickly in the lead section -- as we do here in the second paragraph -- it seems to me that this info wouldn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review & looking forward to the rest of the suggestions... Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Finetooth, I've read through the article and hope you don't mind if I make just one suggestion. I think the lead section needs to be expanded to four paragraphs in order to provide a better overview of the topic, as per WP:Lead. Johnfos (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos, Please don't let my comment above slow you down. Please boldly expand the lead (lede) as you see fit. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
DOE calls it Hanford Site, so I think caps on the site is appropriate. Cacophony (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Ruhrfisch has pointed me to the Geographic Names Information System GNIS of the USGS, which confirms what Cacophony is saying. The official name is Hanford Site. I'm crossing this concern off my list above, though for consistency the name should be Hanford Site in the main text as well. Finetooth (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the lead section. What do you all think? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review process where does it happen

Where is the Good Article Review discussion of this article? I can't find it.

The Good Article template at top of this talk page suggests to me that there is a discussion and voting on the GA candidacy of this article going on somewhere. It suggests you can vote if you have not worked a lot on the article, and I presume you can comment anyhow, if GA review is like other wikipedia processes... Okay, now I possibly find its discussion area, within Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Places, i had been looking under History and elsewhere i guess. Hmm, but then there is a message to discuss it here at this Talk page. Well, the GA review template at the top of this page is pretty unhelpful, misdirection-wise. If any one would fill me in on how GA process works, where/when if ever there is voting and comments, I'd be happy to learn. Or does just one GA reviewer make the decision? (then again the GA review template is misleading). sincerely, doncram (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is on this talk page under the subheader "Good Article Review." There's no voting process. Per WP:GAN any editor can review a nominated article. As soon as that editor feels the article is ready according to the GA criteria, s/he passes it. It looks like User:Finetooth is close to passing it, pending some MOS issues. But comments are welcome above, as well as additions to the article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I do think Template:GAnominee could be more clear, although it is not inconsistent with what happened here. I've been working mostly on Lists that are not eligible for Good Article review, so was unfamiliar with this process. Glad to learn by watching this example. P.S. Will notify promptly when i do receive NRHP documents. doncram (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I did receive those NRHP documents, but am having difficulty making time to crosscheck their contents vs. this article. I would scan them myself and email them, send me an email to which I could reply. I recently opened an "email to me" box on my userpage User:Doncram. doncram (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewer's comments

Thank you for fixing all these MOS things so quickly. You did a nice job, and Hanford Site is a good article. I thinks it's not far from FA, though it's hard to predict what might happen during the FAC. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, Finetooth. You were very helpful. My thinking is that we should wait a a few weeks to see what other editors can add to it, and to see what the NHRP docs bring in for User:doncram. I plan to work on it a bit more over the next month or so and then put it up for FA. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little things

Congrats on getting to GA status. Little things that might be addressed in further edits:

  • The article currently reads "The reactor went critical in late September and, after overcoming nuclear poisoning, produced its first plutonium on 6 November 1944." I am curious what the nuclear poisoning episode was about, and how it was overcome. Currently the sentence personifies the plant, and suggests the plant itself overcame the poisoning. Like it was a person that got over food poisoning, just by forging along. Were not active steps taken by real people to address whatever the problem was? I just think this could be explained more and/or reworded. doncram (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. I have no idea with this means. It's left over from previous versions of the article (diff), and the source I have mentions "fission-product poisoning" without really explaining what the term means. The wikilink adds some information, but the science here is over my head. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge can step in here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is currently a fairly big blank space next to the Table of Contents. Maybe a pic could be swung in there. doncram (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanford High

There's another PD photo of Hanford High School, and a bit of history, here. -Pete (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)