Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser_brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [1].

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the radioactive trowel is in the Smithsonian. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM

[edit]

I looked at this closely during its Milhist ACR, so only have pretty minor points here:

  • in the lead, suggest "shocked the American public with the launch of Sputnik"
  • in the lead, suggest "for the use by the Royal Air Force"
  • suggest "Many of Britain's top scientists participated in the Manhattan Project" and pipe the article link to "participated in the Manhattan Project"
  • the sentence beginning "By the end of 1947..." doesn't make sense to me. If the uranium was stockpiled in the UK, why is it relevant that the McMahon Act didn't allow it to be exported from the US?
  • "the uranium needed to fuel it over for ten years"
  • "The S5W had a Nnuclear reactor core"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes the 1956 crisis in Egypte. Well what I can tell is MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names of wars should be always captalised. But I'm not sure the Sputnik crisis should be also captalised because it is not following MOS miliary rules it could be because a proper noun should be capitalised. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
  • All links are live and working according to the tool.
  • Be consistent in how the author name is formatted; a couple of occasions use Last, First and others use First Last.
  • Similarly, be consistent in formatting for Hansard between refs #78 and #81.
  • The external links section could do with appropriate formatting.

Generally very good, not much to nit pick here. Harrias talk 17:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed in a series of changes [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all good. Harrias talk 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Quebec Conference image. Suggest amending to 'Seated (from the left) are... '. Why a mix of commas and semi colons?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Gave it a read over. Just a couple of things:

  • "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" The whole Congress or just the Senate (since it is apparently a treaty).
    The source says "It sailed through the JCAE hearings. Once the full Congress approved of it on July 30, 1958, the the Anglo-American nuclear partnership was fact." This is because it required the amendment of the McMahon Act, hence both houses. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything on public opinion/protest that is worth saying. This was born in part out of US public reaction to Sputnik, so was the reaction positive? Or of legislative opposition, either of the original agreement or the renewals?
    There was no legislative opposition. Renewals seem to have been handled by the administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canada seems to have been a part of the earlier agreements, but at some step it seems to vanish, though you do mention it as a nation that made its own agreement with the US. Is there something worth saying about why it dropped out.
    It didn't drop out; the 1948 Modus Vivendi remained in force with regard to Canada, and was not superseded by the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which did not apply to Canada. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reads well. I don't see any other problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, HNY! just a few minor comments...

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: Should I expect further comments from you? --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has not been active for a fortnight, and like myself may have suffered a climate-related disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • " the United States was far larger than Britain both militarily and economically" "was far larger" sounds a bit odd - as if the situation has changed. May be "was (and is) far larger"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Quadrant Conference in August 1943, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill and the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, signed the Quebec Agreement," Presumably also Mackenzie King as it also covered Canada, and you should say so.
    Mackenzie King did not sign it, only Churchill and Roosevelt. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information on pain of death." This sounds odd. "on pain of death" must refer to one or more individuals passing the information, not threatening the allies receiving it as you imply. Also "any information" is far too vague and broad and needs clarification.
    Re-worded to: "Technical co-operation was ended by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act), which forbade passing "restricted data" to the United States' allies under pain of death." Here "any information" is replaced by "restricted data". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the 1956 presidential election approaching, Eisenhower was forced to back down." To back down how? To cancel the 1956 agreement?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British timing was good." What timing?
    Changed to "The successful development of British thermonuclear weapons came at an opportune time to renew negotiations with the United States." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" This implies that Warsi is still in office, but she was in 2012-14. Maybe "According to Baroness Warsi in [year], who was then the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs".
    How did you know that? Changed to: "In July 2014 Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2012 to 2014, stated that the government's position was" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • Support. Just one comment on this:
    • Is there any reason why Modus Vivendi is capitalised? It this the name of something specific? If so, then it should be delinked (or piped to somewhere else), as the link goes to the phrase, which should be in lower case

That's a minor point to deal with, so shouldn't stand in the way of supporting the excellent article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1958_US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement/archive1&oldid=937095259"