Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox; all good
Section 1;
- Head of General Staff; what is the position presently called, link it
  - Fixed. The position was replaced with Chief of the Armed Forces, which was a newly-created position. I linked it to the "High command" section of Swiss Armed Forces. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Federal Military Department (EMD); I think it is FMD
  - "EMD" is the German abbreviation. We do this a lot with articles pertaining to Switzerland. Regardless, the correct title of the department at the time was the "Military Department," and I corrected that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Link uranium bomb
- 60-100 kt; what is this kt, never mentioned before, also what is 60-100, range, if so use en dash
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- use {{convert}} for 2-3 km, also use en dash
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- use conversion template while mentioning units, here are the cases, and also abbreviate the units from second mention
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Swiss federal council is over linked
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ten tons; also mention ten in numbers for consistency
  - 3,238 kilograms
  - 2,283 kilograms
  - 3 kilograms
  - 5,000 kilograms
  - sixty to one hundred kilotons
  - 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds)
  - 20 kilograms of plutonium
    - I believe I have fixed all these numbers and units. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Swiss Air Force Mirage III jet would have been able to carry nuclear bombs as far as Moscow; this awkward, as far as Moscow what? what is the reason
- What is IAEA? The acronym is never mentioned before
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- less and less relevant; just "less relevant"
  - Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2; all good
Scherrer's image doesn't have a date
- Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

73.6% confidence, violation possible, this is a serious issue

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:30, 28 January 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) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]