Talk:Trinity (nuclear test)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trinity (nuclear test) article.
Article policies
Good article Trinity (nuclear test) was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Location

  • It would be more accurate to say that the Trinity Site was between the towns of Carrizozo and San Antonio, New Mexico. The latter is the closest town to the site.
  • Could somebody verify the coordinates of test side? The article says the test side is at 33°40'38.21"N 106°28'31.34"W . Shouldn't it be: 33°36'14.31"N 106°35'25.23"W ??
I followed the link in the article to the Google satellite map, which lands in the center of the circle which I have been using as the marker for the site. In other words, the article coordinates look good to me. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Popular culture"

I have to admit a strong bias: I can't stand the "In popular culture" sections which become a hodgepodge for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, rock song, or science fiction novel (the nuclear weapon entry suffers from this somewhat, and the mad scientist entry had to be have a separate list created because people glutted up the page in an attempt to to add in every instance in "popular culture" of a "mad scientist" character.. so useless). I removed the following text:

[edit] In popular culture

The HBO television series Carnivale makes frequent reference to the Trinity site, initially in the pilot episode and now setting up the testing as a possible culmination point for the series.

Is there a compelling reason to add this? Does it improve the article? Does it improve our understanding of the article? I think that the article for the show should mention that it talks about the Trinity test, and link back here. I don't think such links need to be reciprocal, though. But I understand this is just a matter of taste. Let me know if you seriously think this is really necessary for an understanding of what "Trinity site" is about. --Fastfission 17:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

leave it out. - Omegatron 19:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is one "popular culture" (though it's not so popular) item I'm now afraid to refer to: Infocom's Trinity, in which you ultimately visit the site and have to stop the explosion... or so you think. Seeing that everything included must improve our understanding of the article, I'm sure we can't let this vile pop culture pervade our pristine nuggets of condensed knowledge. :-P 82.92.119.11 8 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

That's interesting, but the link should be from the video game here, not vice versa. The video game doesn't enhance our understanding of the Trinity test; the Trinity test enhances our understanding of the video game. --Fastfission 8 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
I was sorta hoping to challenge the assertion that "X cannot mention Y unless Y enhances our understanding of X"—getting into what is supposed to be "enhancing" to begin with. It's all too fuzzy and ill-defined for me to bother with. You obviously would disapprove of such an addition, I have no logical arguments to defend myself with, so I'll go away now. 82.92.119.11 9 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
I've put a link to the game in a more appropriate page, nuclear weapons in popular culture, which is linked to from here. If we put in a link to that game, we'd have to put a link in to every movie, game, news article, etc. which ever mentioned the test. I think that's not very helpful on the whole. --Fastfission 20:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The Infocom game does a damn sight more than "mention" the test, considering the player must traverse an accurate virtual map of the test site and the McDonald Ranch House in order to play through successfully. Whether reading about the game will aid understanding of the test, I'll not argue, but playing the game certainly aided mine. Reading this article (and the one on McDonald Ranch House) for the first time, I noted facts I had already learned from the Infocom game. --63.25.15.191 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric ignition

Multiple sources have said that there were real fears of the blast triggering a Ice-9 type transition - in this case, igniting the atmosphere (!). If someone would be able to verify this as real or fake, it should make a very interesting addition... -- Kizor 21:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Nuclear explosion:
In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This would concern a nuclear reaction of two nitrogen atoms forming a carbon and an oxygen atom, with release of energy. This energy would heat up the remaining nitrogen enough to keep the reaction going until all nitrogen were finished. This was, however, quickly shown to be unlikely enough to be considered impossible [1]. Nevertheless, the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years.
--Fastfission 00:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"Betting pools were set up among the observers for the results of the test. Some predictions ranged from zero, a dud, to 18 kilotons of TNT (predicted by I. I. Rabi), to destruction of the state of New Mexico, to ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the planet (fortunately, this result was calculated to be almost impossible beforehand, though for a while it caused some of the scientists some anxiety.."

How did those betting on "ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the planet" plan to collect on their wager in the event of them being correct ????? 87.112.11.232 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that the fears of "atmospheric ignition" were about the oxygen in the air "buring" with the nitrogen. T.Neo (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppenheimer's hindu quote

The article states that ""Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds." was a misquote by Oppenheimer. Can anyone say what the correct quote should have been? -Lethe | Talk 03:21, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the translation. But most of them do "I am become Time" rather than "Death", I believe. I added a reference to an article by Hiyija which goes into it in (a ton of) detail. --Fastfission 04:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe the quote should be, "Now I am become Shiva, the Destroyer of worlds." Shiva is the Destroyer. Shiva is also the Creator. It has been suggested the Oppenheimer intended the double meaning. e=mc^2 is just that. It destroys, but also creates.
Um, you can see the article referenced at the bottom by Hiyija for a full discussion of the quote. --Fastfission 06:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Test director Kenneth Bainbridge, in an attempt to be less poetic, or perhaps more so, was said to have replied, "Now we are all sons of bitches." According to Oppenheimer's brother, Frank, at the time of the test he simply said, "It worked."

This passage is ambiguous. Was it Oppenheimer or Bainbridge that according to Frank so simply expressed his relief? I still don't know...

  • Ah, I see what you mean. Frank was referring to Robert, there. --Fastfission 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up (I think it's what most of us would have said, too!)

The examination of the precise translation and origin of a Bhagavad Gita quote by Oppenheimer is extraneous to this article. Oppenheimer's sentiments are captured sufficiently with the one line, regardless of what the text of more accurate translations may be or how similar other materials may be. I am removing it. --Soonercary 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it adds a lot, but I'm happy with putting it into a footnote. --Fastfission 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity anniversary!

The 60th anniversary of the Trinity shot will be coming up on July 16, 2005 (two months from now). Let's try to get this article up to featured status by that time, as there are likely to be lots of news stories about the shot and lots of people searching google for more information! An ideal article on this might be structured like so:

  • Reason for the testing (two paragraph history of the Manhattan Project up to this point, uncertainty of the implosion method)
  • Preparation for the testing itself (finding the site, clearing out the locals, Jumbo, 100T pre-test, Laurence's letter, naming the test, etc.)
  • The test (the gadget, weather, assembling the bomb, the countdown, detonation)
  • Reactions to the test (scientists' reactions, Oppenheimer's quote, etc.)
  • Beyond the test (used by Truman at Potsdam, clearing out the rubble, Trinitite, the iconic photography)
  • Trinity today (atomic tourism, in culture, symbolism)

Let's work to put something like this together! I'm also thinking that we might want to rename it to "Trinity test" rather than just the "site", but I'm not sure it matters heavily. But it is a thought. --Fastfission 18:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I moved a draft to the article page. Improvements welcome. Ancheta Wis 15:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

+Bethe's determination of the feasibility of the method? +Univ of Calif. workshop on the bomb? +Atomic everything (cocktail waitresses, etc. -- Lew Kowarski )? Would this be on a subpage? Ancheta Wis 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC) July 16, 1945 05:45:29 AM, Mountain War Time

Certainly the whole "it won't work/oh wait maybe it will" etc. problems would be a wonderful addition (plays up for drama well). I'm not sure the Berkeley workshop is entirely germane -- it is less connected with Trinity than it is the MP as a whole. I'm not sure "atomic everything" would apply except so much as it related to Trinity itself -- the famous "blob" picture (Brixner) and that one famous color one (Aeby), and the incessant quoting ("I am become Death"), etc. would be, though. And one thing I would add to the above list is the way it was released to the public: after Hiroshima, and pictures not until later. --Fastfission 01:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

+OK, sign me up. I'm going to a bookstore to get Bethe's memoir, and will get started on that aspect of it (unless someone wants to do this part). But the man who simply said "It worked" afterward also had afterthoughts which are germane to the present day. You might also send a note to the political scientists who might enjoy adding commentary, or at least a link to articles about the commentary. There might also be links to the exact section of the Bhagavad Gita#Revelation of the Supreme with the "Sunburst of a Thousand Suns" phrase, etc. Ancheta Wis 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Carrizozo Malpais has a satellite picture of the location of Trinity site. There is a Map-it macro with some images of the site and terrain. This area is amazing, by the way. The White Sands, the Black Malpais, with Sierra Blanca overlooking the area (yes, you can ski there), the Apache reservation, I am not sure if the Stealth Fighter wing will get closed down (probably not). Sunspot NM -- there are 2 solar observatories about 50 miles away. Ancheta Wis 10:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like an aerial view of the crater. I added the coordinates so it's veiwable on google satellite but i'm sure there's some public domain pictures available somewhere. - Omegatron 23:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the crater doesn't exist anymore -- it was bulldozed over a long time ago. However there are some common aerial photos juxtaposing the Trinity test explosion and the 100T explosion in terms of magnitude which I'm sure were taken during the Manhattan Project and in the public domain. I'll try to dig up a good picture for a good hi-res scan. --Fastfission 00:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, right afterwards wuold be better than this. - Omegatron 02:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The basic one I am talking about is this one (also here) but I'm not happy with any of the copies I have seen online. I think I know where I can find a much higher resolution version, but it will take me a few weeks to get back in town where I can access it. The large black crater was the Trinity blast, the smaller explosion to the south-east of it was the crater of 100 tons of TNT. --Fastfission 04:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, this looks pretty good! The only thing missing is a description of the actual test preparations itself -- Jumbo, hoisting the bomb to the top of the tower, problems in putting in the core, fear of the weather, leading up to the countdown. If someone has the time, there are a number of descriptions of this all over the internet... --Fastfission 14:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Whenever we get around to finding a place to stick it, I wasn't able to find a better crater picture but this one will do for now: Image:Trinity crater.jpg. --Fastfission 21:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Well, I just came here from the link on the front page. Gotta say, you did a good job of making an interesting article. Well done. :) One small nitpick, though: you quote two figures for the yield of the device, 18.6kt and 19kt. I assume the 19 is rounded, but ideally the same figure should be used throughout the article. JulesH 22:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed that up and went for a more "rounded" number (I don't trust "exact" numbers with things like this). --Fastfission 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Contemporary News reports

I just heard on NPR that there were contemporary news reports. What did they say? The article just says The military reported it as an accidental explosion at a munitions dump, and the actual cause was not publicly acknowledged until the August 6 attack but more info would be great. --NealMcB 19:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I don't know, I'll see if I can find any citations for those. I have in PDFs all of the original press releases which were to be released depending on whether or not anybody died in the test (alluded to in the article), but I can't recall what was actually reported. The major newspapers (NYT, Washington Post, WSJ) did not pick it up at all, I'm pretty sure (I did a search on that day for "explosion" in their archives and found nothing relevant). --Fastfission 19:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tower leg shoes shown to this day

How come the basis of tower legs survived the explosion, including the steel bars in it? They were all inside the fireball. Shouldn't they atomize to plasma or entirely evaporate at least? I can understand how the big Jumbo jug survived 800 meters away, outside the fireball, but cannot get the tower legs.

The fireball does not supply an infinite amount of heat and the amount of heat is less at the edges. This is also why the fireball did not leave behind a perfectly spherically-shaped hole in the ground, as it could not atomize everything which it brushed. (SEWilco 18:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Ethics matters

Though impeccably documented, at least from an historical perspective, I come to disagree with the original report. Its partial approach is perfectly reflected in the way it justifies the nuclear action overtaken by the US government. Yet in the dawn of the 21st century, I've just been horrified to read that 120,000 deaths were just a sort of collateral damage to avoid futher damages.I am afraid this is not only a frivolous and false remark, but a tremendous lack of respect for all the victims of that day, and a new prove that, unfortunately, history is written by winners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.247.136.34 (talk • contribs) .

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. Try being a bit more coherent. --Fastfission 01:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Any such claims that you may have read probably reflect one of the arguments in favor of the bombs' deployment, and do not construe objective reality beyond that capacity. Such a rationale may be an offensive idea, but reporting on it is not a demonstration of bias. If you're talking about some other source or prior revision of some Wikipedia article of which I am unaware, perhaps I am mistaken as I don't know the exact wording of that about which you're talking. Dwringer (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colorized explosion

Is this a colorized version of Image:trinity_explosion.jpg? I'm not sure that a digitally altered version of a historic photo is more appropriate for this article. --Yath 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a revert war brewing. I don't think colorized versions of historic photos belong in an encyclopedia except possibly in very specific, justified circumstances. None of the recently added images here (Trinity test) or at LZ 129 Hindenburg improve the article, in my opinion. If someone can bring up reasons for including them, by all means do so. But I think they should go. --Yath 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think colorized images are a mistake as well. They sacrifice historical accuracy for showbiz pizazz. I suggest the black-and-white originals be returned. Blimpguy 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If the original is black-and-white (and I'm almost positive it is), we shouldn't be adding non-original information. Avt tor 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that opinion. Colourised images smack of original research on the part of the colouriser.--chris.lawson 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Colorized versions of this sort are absolutely inappropriate. There is also no reason to think it was that hue of orange at all! --24.147.86.187 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fermi fast mind

Perhaps must be quoted the anecdote of how Enrico Fermi estimate the power of the bomb with throwing papers while the test. It can be linked to Fermi's problems as well.

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Under the "Test results" section, the article currently says: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed at least 120,000 people outright and many more over time, but are claimed by many internationally credible sources to have saved many more lives in the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II.

The citing of anonymous "internationally credible sources" here adds an implicit POV judgment to the discussion; those who justify the bombings in this way are characterized as "internationally credible," encouraging the reader to subscribe to their claim to the detriment of their anonymous opponents. This is also a perfect example of weasel words.

Although, in my opinion, there are also "many internationally credible sources" on the other side of this debate, I figured a better solution would be to remove any value judgments whatsoever and add a more neutral statement about the continuing controversy over this issue. Doudja 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A conjecture on the name

The trinity device, Fat Man and Little Boy make three. Lycurgus 09:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Except at the time they didn't know it would be only three explosions. --Fastfission (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ??

Booooom today at this time many years ago Apupunchau 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thin Man

The plutonium gun bomb Thin Man nuclear bomb was found impractical in April 1944 not 1942 according to the Thin Man page Hugo999 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The following issues all need inline citations. The statements may be questioned by a reader for their verifiability, or may be a quote that always need inline citations directly after the statement.

  1. "From these results it was thought that the creation of a bomb was as simple as shooting one piece of fissile material into another to form a critical mass."
  2. "It was feared that the danger from radiation and fallout would be greatly increased by rain, and lightning had the scientists concerned about accidental detonation."
  3. "The shock wave was felt over 100 miles (160 km) away, and the mushroom cloud reached 7.5 miles (12 km) in height."
  4. "Test director Kenneth Bainbridge replied to Oppenheimer, "Now we are all sons of bitches." According to Oppenheimer's brother, Frank, Oppenheimer simply said, "It worked."" Quotes
    • Sourced Rhodes. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. "News reports quoted a forest ranger 150 miles (240 km) west of the site as saying he saw "a flash of fire followed by an explosion and black smoke." A New Mexican 150 miles (240 km) north said, "The explosion lighted up the sky like the sun." Other reports remarked that windows were rattled and the sound of the explosion could be heard up to 200 miles (320 km) away."
  6. "The Manhattan Project's official journalist, William L. Laurence, had put multiple press releases on file with his office at The New York Times to be released in case of an emergency, ranging from an account of a successful test (the one which was used) to more macabre scenarios explaining why all of the scientists had perished in a single freak accident.[citation needed]" Address the inline citation tag.
    • I couldn't find source but article William L. Laurence says similar, so should be in one of that article's sources. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. "Around 260 personnel were present, none closer than 5.6 miles (9 km). At the next test series, Operation Crossroads in 1946, over 40,000 people were present."
    • Sourced Crossroads number, did not find Trinity number. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. "It could not be tested because there was only enough uranium-235 for one bomb."
    • Could not source; same is stated in Little Boy and Manhattan Project. Rhodes describes at end of Trinity chapter of Little Boy being loaded on the Indianapolis, but I could not find specific statement of single U-235 bomb (preceding chapters mention how precious the U-235 was). -- SEWilco (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

  1. Expand the lead a bit more if possible to better summarize all of the sections in the article. For example, include information about the fact it is a tourist site now.
  2. If possible, expand the test results section with any other available information. It seems brief for such an important test. If no new information can be found with the sources available, expand on the current information there.
  3. There are a few single/two-sentence paragraphs that should either be expanded on or incorporated into another paragraph as they shouldn't stand alone. An example is "Around 260 personnel were present, none closer than 5.6 miles (9 km). At the next test series, Operation Crossroads in 1946, over 40,000 people were present."
  4. "The amount of exposure received during a one-hour visit to the site is about half of what a U.S. adult receives on an average day from natural and medical sources.[3]" Convert this external link to an inline citation.
  5. Consider removing some of the external links, there are quite a bit of them. See WP:EL for recommendations on what type of external links to include. Consider using these links for finding sources for the above "citation needed" statements if they are from reliable sources.
  6. This isn't required for GA status, but it would be beneficial for the readers/FA status if the external links all used the templates found at WP:CITET. The websites could include the author, date, access date, title, etc.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and it's great there are so many free images. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not know the origin of the name, or that Oppenheimer picked it. It could be a nice touch to link the two aspects of poetic description: Trinity, and "I have become death".
Finding a cite might be a challenge, but Fermi's experiment of dropping pieces of paper to measure the yield is an interesting aside.
There are definitely more details about the test, such as what happened to the Jumbo container, no longer needed. Most details would be anecdotal, because there are things we'd look for today that were not known at the time. Several effects required a higher burst altitude to have significant effect, such as EMP and the Mach effect. Have you gone through Carey Sublette's pages? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to get my big fat book on the subject tomorrow. Most of the quotes should be in it. Someone else will have to convert the citations; the kangaroo court said I can't help. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If all of the above issues are addressed, I have no problem converting the citations myself. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, more work being delegated based on the whims of another unknown person... I confess to finding these sorts of things wearying—from "Be Bold" we have turned to "Be Scholastic".
Anyway, I don't have any time to devote to this, I'm afraid, but most everything can be found somewhere in Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, of course. The bit about Laurence comes, I believe, from Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear. Frank's quote is originally in the Jon Else documentary, but can also surely be found elsewhere (bad pun?). A good cite for the "from these results" bit might be the Los Alamos Primer itself. --Fastfission (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Rhodes is what I have. I found some other sources too, and added bullet points above in addition to editing the article. I'm done, I think. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Eew, other things you find while looking at stuff... I'm not going to add "For observers standing from six to ten miles away, the site was fearsome." because those six miles away probably did fear the site, and probably didn't like the sight either. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review for WP:NRHP

I see that WP:NRHP is listed on this Talk page, and I appreciate your notice to Talk page of WP:NRHP re this GA review. But, I don't see anything in the article justifying it being included in WP:NRHP. From the NRIS system, there does exist a "White Sands National Monument Historic District" which is a NRHP, but there is no redirect from that name to this article. There's nothing in the article about the historic district established, the date of NRHP listing, or anything else. There are no NRHP sources, such as the official NRHP Inventory-Nomination document which is included in many NRHP site articles as a source. I think probably it is best to remove WP:NRHP from this article. A separate article could be created about the NRHP district, later, if a New Mexico WP:NRHP wikipedian would like to do so. (Often, it is helpful to have a separate article about a site, separate from an event like this is or from a historic person who was associated with a site). But, for now for NRHP standards, I would have to rate this article as merely a STUB, and certainly not a Good Article in terms of describing the NRHP site that is associated with the event. doncram (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Added NRHP infobox, and linked to NPS info next to NRHP/NHL dates. Is the article correct, that the NHL date is before the NRHP date? The dating in the lists is confusing. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The National Historic Landmark program predates the National Register of Historic Places. The first NHLs were designated in 1960. When the NRHP was created in 1966, the NHLs were automaticaly listed in the NRHP. Thus, for many properties there are two dates - one for NHL designation, the other for listing in the NRHP. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The NRHP infobox, NHL webpage link, and NRHP text PDF link added by SEwilco definitely help, thanks and glad you had energy to do this. I refined those somewhat, adding an NRIS footnote, adding the 10 pic NRHP photo set to the NRHP text PDF link, and using footnote names to invoke the 3 references elsewhere in the article. Now it does seem that this should stay in WP:NRHP. Some more development in the article now about the 36000(?) acre area that is covered in the landmarking, based on the NRHP text, would be helpful. doncram (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps review: failed

Although many of the issues I raised were addressed, various statements are still lacking citations and the other issues section weren't fixed. Because of this, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Good job on fixing some of the issues so far and keep it up. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)