This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / Cold War 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) United States: Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Source: Cleanup and demolition[edit source] Before the last four major facilities at the plant could be demolished, approximately 20 years of work was completed to stabilize approximately approximately Suggesting the removal of the repetition of word approximately in the first sentence of the section "Cleanup and demolition"

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant at the Hanford Site

• ... that the Plutonium Finishing Plant (pictured), which processed more than 66 metric tons of plutonium between 1949 and 1989, was demolished between 2016 and 2021? Source: pp. 28-29 and [1]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

5x expanded by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 437 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• QPQ done, sources look good, article looks clean of issues, images are all good. I'm having trouble finding the hook expressed in the article. Where can I find it? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tweaked the text. Last sentence of operations: "Between 1949 and 1989, the Plutonium Finishing Plant had produced more than 66 metric tons of plutonium.[24]" First sentence of cleanup and demolition: "Demolition work began in 2016.[52]" Second last sentence: "all demolition and cleanup work was completed in November 2021." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you doing math by assessing the graphs on the cited pages from this document? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The table on p. 29. I subtracted production for 1947-1949 (946) from the total up to 1989 (67,363) = 66,417. There was six months of production in 1949, so it would have been a bit higher. Routine calculations are permissible. (WP:AVRC) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Calculations like that definitely are ok, just was making sure that the source lined up. We're good here, nice job! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plutonium Finishing Plant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, I will review this nomination. It's a shame this review was not picked up for so long. I will try to get it completed within a reasonable amount of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my comments on the prose:

• I reckon that the last two paragraphs of the lead could be merged. Wdyt?

  Y Sure. Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made some small copy edits. I hope these are alright.

  The only one I reversed was substituting "avoided" for "saved"; I feel the former implies that it was avoided altogether, which was not the case.

• None of the images have alt texts. Would it be ok if I added these myself?

  Sure. Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the first two paragraphs of the Background section could be merged.

  Y Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We use Manhattan District and Manhattan Project interchangeably. For those not aware these mean the same thing, like myself, this is quite confusing. I initially thought you meant the SDNY attorney when you mention the Manhattan District. You should either use one or explain that both are the same.

  They don't mean the same thing. If you look at the organisation chart in the Manhattan Project article, you can see the Manhattan Project (Groves) at the top and the Manhattan District (Nichols) under him. The article is very careful about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We use American English (obv) in the article, so could we add the Use AmE template at the start, near the Use mdy dates template?

  Y The article uses dmy dates. Added a {{use American English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "about 750 kilograms of plutonium; in 1959, some 3,500 kilograms were produced"; "more than 4,000 kilograms"; "when 4,500 kilograms"; "recovered 9.3 kilograms"; "when 94 kilograms"; "received 72 kilograms"; "6 kilograms"; "recovered 157 kilograms"; "14,638 grams"; "27.5 kilograms of plutonium"; "196 kilograms"; "28.5 kilograms"; "29.5 kilograms": add the Convert template to represent the figures in pounds as well, as done in the lead?

  The US customary unit for plutonium is kilograms; troy ounces and pounds are not used. So no conversion is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've linked americium and Isochem. I hope these are alright.
• "The RMC line was restarted on 1 July 1985": We last mention that the RMC line was processing inputs from the N-Reactor in 1977. When was the line closed in between?

  Y It wasn't. Corrected this oversight on my part. I left a bit out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the AEXC? Some division of the AEC?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the REDOX plant? We have not glossed this anywhere in the preceding text.

  Y It is in the main article. Copied some text across, with attribution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Add the chemical formula for carbon tetrachloride, nitric acid and americium nitrate, as done for other compounds?

  Chemical formula for carbon tetrachloride is already there; added the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "50-gallon drums": Add the converted value in liters?

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 28.5 and 29.5 kgs total 58 kgs. There was 196 kgs of plutonium mentioned in the article. What happened to the remaining 138 kgs?

  Still there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to the Department of Energy in the Cleanup and demolition section?

  Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me on the prose review. The image and source reviews are to come soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Thanks for doing this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, everything above looks good, though I would recommend adding lb values for the kg values of plutonium, especially since we're writing on an American topic and mostly for an American audience. Other than that, would you be open to reviewing a recent FAC nomination of mine, link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Mycale/archive1? Matarisvan (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]