Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox;
- Other nuclear material was also acquired from the United States under the treaty; only one material?
  This is grammatically correct. ("one material" is not though) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion missing for "5.4 tonnes", "7.5 tonnes"
  Imperial/US conventional units for fissile materials is metric, so no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1;
- Link "Hyde Park Agreement"
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain its relation with the Quebec Agreement
  "extended both commercial and military cooperation into the post-war period" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- was not binding -> did not bind
  "was not binding" is correct. See wikt:binding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link "Field Marshal"
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "pain of death" mean?
  It's an English legal lemma. It means that the death penalty applies. See wikt:on pain of
- Modus Vivendi; is this an agreement?
  Y Yes. Added that. See [wikt:modus vivendi]]. Nut here it refers to a specific agreement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The~~ "Meanwhile" Soviet Union responded
  No, the chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link "Bermuda Conference"
  There's no article. It would be a red link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Operation Grapple
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2;
- Capitals on sputnik
  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Royal Navy
  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason for capitals on "Special Relationship"
  Y Yes, but de-captalised here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3;
- by far the most comprehensive; "comprehensive" in which sense? In the size of the agreement or in exchange of technology etc.
  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- training of personnel; by whom, US or OK or mutual
  Y Mutual. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also confidential intelligence matters covered by the agreement -> Confidential intelligence matters were also covered by the agreement
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- section 3.1; para 3; What is "HEU"? Never defined in the previous text, please define it on the first mention
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link "Herbert Loper" on the first mention in para 1 of section 3.3
  He already appeared in the previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- J.H.B. Macklen -> J. H. B. Macklen; per MOS:INITIALS
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Aldermaston
  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- para 1 of section 3.4; highly enriched uranium (HEU); has been already linked and defined before, dup-link
  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- para 1 of section 3.4; tritium; already linked, dup-link
  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- conversion for 21.86 tonnes
  Fissile material is always in metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section 4; all good
All images OK
External links check shows a dead link
{{tick} Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio check 1, 2, 3 shows violation possible, but they are mostly due to quotations. So no issues.

G'work, nice article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I could not decide under which section of WP:GA/W the article is to be listed, any idea? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File it under "Weapons, military equipment and programs" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]