Talk:STRAT-X

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the STRAT-X article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

STRAT-X has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
May 7, 2012	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 4, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 2, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a document from the 1960s STRAT-X* US nuclear deterrent study was composed from a Soviet perspective, disapproving of capitalism and glorifying socialism?*
Current status: Good article

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States A‑class

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 articles

A

This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Pine, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 1, 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:STRAT-X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is not a length requirement for GA, my immediate comment is that the article is a bit short, at 961 words. I've taken a quick look, and it looks pretty good. I'll probably finish the review sometime in the next hour. →Σ τ c. 07:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Does study have to be linked?
STRAT-X has been acknowledged by independent journalists as greatly influencing the U.S. nuclear posture. How was it influenced?

Well, it did result in at least four weapons systems, and how the nuclear triad is operated. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a major point, but should that be added?

Background

Were these ICBMs to be used operationally, they would have posed a significant risk to U.S. ICBMs. Needs a reference.
Meanwhile... Please rephrase.

Study

government red tape does not sound encyclopedic.
In the end, a twenty-volume report covered no less than 125 different weapon-basing ideas, nine of which were reviewed in great detail.^[1][4][3] Please reorder the references, so it results in Stuff.^[1][3][4]

Findings and consequences

Nevertheless, the former was only a prototype, while 50, out of the original 100, of the latter were fielded (the Peacekeeper had since been retired). Are commas (which have never been my strong point) after 50 and 100 necessary?

Legacy

Per WP:ELPOINTS, external links in the body of an article are discouraged.

All done. Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good enough for me.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on STRAT-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018002131/http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1970-1980&sd=01%2F01%2F1970&ed=12%2F31%2F1989 to http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1970-1980&sd=01%2F01%2F1970&ed=12%2F31%2F1989

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]