This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
Please explain (give rational) for this article/lemma; this is very much in the area of Wikipedia:No original research. I say this because the German article has similar problems. If the so-called "Nuclear Weapons Convention" is an official, formally run program, by the UN, that would be a good reason. However, a "proposed multilateral treaty..." is not original research, or in the words of Wikipedia, does not publish original thought (see link above). On-going UN proposals and ideas are not original research. It is perfectly fine to have articles on NTP, CTBT, etc.. Furthermore: Multiple passages that mention ~2007 etc., so this is either history or should be updated. This is just one feedback. KR