Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project E/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) 15:09, 6 November 2018 [1].

Project E

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the US supplying nuclear weapons to the UK forces during the Cold War. It was the first of a series of nuclear sharing agreements; subsequently weapons were supplied on similar terms to Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. The article faced deletion as a hoax back in 2008, but was saved, and is now presented at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Lead 1a:

  • "prior to Britain's own nuclear weapons becoming available"—it's slightly clunky; but you may have reasons for not liking this suggestion: "before Britain independently developed its own nuclear weapons". Any problem in using "United Kingdom" and "Britain" in the same sentence? I could cope with the repetition of "Britain" to avoid processing the switch. Later, I see "United Kingdom" again, which after first usage I'd prefer to be abbreviated too ("UK")—if you decide to keep switching.
    Re-worked the lead slightly to get around this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United States was approached"—passive ... so who did the approaching? Canada, on Britain's behalf? Full sentence: " The United States was approached to supply weapons for the strategic bombers of the V-bomber fleet until sufficient British ones became available. An agreement was reached in 1957." I wonder whether the medium-sized and stubby sentences could be unscrambled and merged to solve some problems (including the ungainly "ones").
    Mentioned the PM and President to escape from using the passive. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under Project E, US personnel had custody of the weapons, and performed all the tasks related to their storage, maintenance and readiness. "US" here, so why not also on first appearance after you spell it out at the top? Commas: my preference is for serial commas in inline lists, but fine if it's not your cuppa. But could you dump the comma after "weapons", for flow? Can it be "all tasks"?
    Deleted "the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secure Storage Areas (SSAs)"—why capped in expanded form? Just because some source does it is not reason for modern publications to do it. Styleguides in the US and the UK say to minimise unnecessary capping. So does our MOS. Why Nuclear in the infobox?
    De-capped per WP:EXPABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were also used on the sixty Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles which were operated by the RAF from 1959 to 1963 under Project Emily." First, without a comma before, "that" is preferred over "which", unless you're David Attenbrough. Second, I can cope with the first passive voice, but why a second? You don't even need that/which: "... Missiles the RAF operated from ...".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check you need both "also"s in the last para. Maaaybe.
    Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A maritime version of Project E known as Project N provided nuclear depth bombs used by the RAF Coastal Command." MOS discourages bolding like that. Can't it be italicised? And here's another passive. Is this possible? "provided nuclear depth bombs for the RAF Coastal Command". Unless you're going to tell us later that they did use them to bomb ... whom ... the Irish?
    MOS:BOLDTITLE: the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist for auditing throughout: unnecessary commas in a few places; unnecessary passive constructions. Country abbreviations for simpler reading?

Nominator is a prominent, much-admired editor of MilHist articles ... that's my opinion, too. So I'm rudely suggesting we clean up a bit. :-) Tony (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, as usual some gnomish suggestions...

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to now support, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Just a placeholder for now, will try to get to this by the w/e. Cheers, 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, recusing from coord duties to review... I think Hawkeye could write these nuclear-themed articles in his sleep but they never cease to bring forth interesting technical, military, and political facts. Copyedited as I usually do, so let me know any issues; some outstanding points:

  • The offer was rejected by the British on the grounds that it was not "compatible with our status as a first class power to depend on others for weapons of this supreme importance". -- Sounds like it was a government release or representative speaking but can we clarify/attribute?
    Baylis doesn't say, but his footnote points me back to Gowing, who makes it clear that it was the British Chiefs of Staff considering the idea, and the quote comes from their written response. Changed to "by the British Chiefs of Staff", and switched the footnote to point to Gowing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This eventuality was foreseen. -- I don't think this sentence works as it stands, perhaps something like The shortage of British atomic bombs was foreseen? Of course it's still passive, can we be specific about who foresaw it (even if it's just "the British" or "the Americans" or both)?
    I've re-worked this bit: Once V-bomber production ramped up, their numbers soon exceeded that of the available atomic bombs. Production of atomic bombs was slow, and Britain had only ten on hand in 1955, and fourteen in 1956. At this rate, there would not be sufficient bombs to equip all the V-bombers until 1961. The planned number of V-bombers was a bit of a moving target due to regular budget cuts, dropping from 240 to 144. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, thanked the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, for the generous offer. -- Not sure this sentence adds anything, the implication of the previous sentence is that the offer would be turned down so the thanking part seems like fluff unless we can add that Dickson formally rejected (or accepted) the offer when he saw Twining -- or were things still up in the air (pun unintended) at this stage?
    Changed to: In June, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir William Dickson, informed the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General Nathan Twining, that the RAF was declining the offer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Americans then wanted to know how many bombs would be required. The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force would reach a strength of 240 aircraft during 1958. -- Um, is that it? The Americans want to know how many bombs but all we know are how many aircraft? Or is the implication that each aircraft could only carry one bomb?
    Added: Each would carry one atomic bomb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it turned out that the doors only opened between 50.50 and 51.19 inches (1,283 and 1,300 mm), depending on the aircraft, which meant that the bombs would have to be individually matched with aircraft. After some thought, 0.5 inches (13 mm) was cut off each bomb fin. -- I love the way you've expressed this, it sounds like something out of Yes Prime Minister, when they talk about the nuclear warheads not fitting onto the missiles properly...
    You're the first person to notice, but the whole article was originally written in Sir Humphrey Appleby's voice, with bits like: Moreover, during test firings in the Outer Hebrides, although eight out of twelve missiles accurately hit their targets, four fell short, which is always bad but particularly so when nuclear weapons are involved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the operational restrictions imposed by Project E "effectively handed the US government a veto over the use of half of Britain's nuclear deterrent" -- can we attribute the quote inline?
    It was Bronk, so I have rewritten the paragraph. It now reads: The Treasury immediately inquired as to whether this meant that the British megaton bomb programme could be terminated. Project E was intended to be a stopgap measure, and while the RAF was impressed with the superior yield of US thermonuclear weapons, its Director of Plans noted that "by retaining Project E at its present strength the US may continue to underestimate the UK independent capability, so that the weight given to HM Government's influence on vital issues would be less than it might otherwise be." Both Sandys and the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Dermot Boyle argued that the UK needed the capacity to initiate a nuclear war unilaterally, but this was not possible if US permission was required for half of the force. With sufficient British bombs on hand, operational issues and the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent came to the fore. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project E was used more widely to refer to similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine -- As the opening sentence of a new subsection, this needs context... "More widely" than what? "Similar" to what? "Project E" the term or the project?
    Yes. Changed to: Project E was expanded to encompass similar arrangements for providing nuclear weapons to the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR)
    All those changes look good to me, tks Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A nice read overall, straightforward and succinct. No particular concerns re. structure or comprehensiveness. I'll hold off support until the above points are addressed, and source and image reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending source and image reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

  • I take that http://nuclear-weapons.info/Working_Paper_No_1.pdf is a reliable source?
    The Mountbatten Centre for International Studies is a reliable source. The paper is written by Richard Moore, an expert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/ a reliable source?
    Let me see if I can replace with Stoddart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that https://fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm is a reliable source?
    The Federation of American Scientists is a reliable source. The paper was commissioned by Greenpeace. I've switched the reference to a book I have here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something odd about ISBN 978-1-78155-481-4, Google Books has a different author than Wikipedia?
    Are we looking at the same book? [2] John Boyes is the author. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like it's all fine then in terms of source quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - We're rapidly approaching the two-month mark without sufficient support for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list, but this will have to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more commentary/declaration. --Laser brain (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nigel Ish

[edit]

A few comments;

  • In the Tactical bombers section, it may be worth clarifying that the Valiants were made available for Tactical use because the Vulcans and Victors replaced them in the strategic role. Currently this is implied, but it might be expressed clearer.
    Added: "and replaced the Valiants in the strategic role" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty certain that at least the RAF Germany Canberras swapped their Mark 7s for later US weapons before they were retired - The Canberra article mentions replacement with B43 - unfortunately I no longer have access to the Air International articles I used to write that bit of the Canberra article.
    The article already says: "Each of the 24 Valiants was equipped with two of the more powerful Project E Mark 28 nuclear bombs .These were replaced by the newer Mark 43 nuclear bombs in early 1963." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning that the availability of US tactical weapons for NATO duties released UK weapons for non-NATO duties where the American weapons couldn't be used - British nuclear bombs armed Canberras in the Near and Far East, for example.
    Added: "The availability of US bombs meant that more British bombs were available for use elsewhere. A permanent storage site for 32 Red Beards was opened at RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus in November 1961,[39] and one for 48 Red Beards at RAF Tengah in Singapore." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear precisely what the limits of Project E were - did it cover the availability of US tactical weapons for the RAF's Buccaneers or Tornados after the Canberra was retired?
    No, the Buccaneers and Tornadoes carried the WE.177. Added: "The Canberras continued in service, with their B43 Project E bombs until the last was retired in June 1972.[7] They were replaced by Phantom FGR.2s, which carried Project E B43 and B57 nuclear bombs between June 1972 and October 1976, when they in turn were replaced in the tactical nuclear role by the Jaguar GR.1, which carried British WE.177 bombs." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the Corporals? It isn't entirely clear whether they were directly replaced by other missiles or just phased out without replacement.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit about their being withdrawn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently suggests that of the V-bombers, only the Valiant and Vulcan were modified or allocated US bombs - what about Victors? There is a 2003 article in Air Enthusiast magazine (Lietch, Andy (September–October 2003). "V Force Nuclear Arsenal: Weapons For The Valiant, Victor and Vulcan". Air Enthusiast. No. 107. pp. 52–59. ISSN 0143-5450.) which suggests that the Victors were at least modified to a common standard with the Vulcans so that they could handle Mk 5, Ref Beard or Yellow Sun. In addition, it notes that in the early years of Project E there were more bombs at Waddington (with only 1 front line Vulcan squadron) than aircraft, so that in a crisis, aircraft would have to be flown into Waddington to be bombed up.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added: "The Victors were also modified to carry US weapons" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think all my comments have been met.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (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/Project_E/archive1&oldid=867632932"