Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/STRAT-X/archive1

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 07:51, 4 July 2012 [1].

STRAT-X

Featured article candidates/STRAT-X/archive1

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it had passed MILHIST ACR and is ready for the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ling
- 22 cites from one magazine article (authoritative though it may be), nary a hardcover book cite in sight, though google books assures me they exist. Please reassure me that disdaining all those hardcover books is an acceptable approach– for example,do your sources cover the topic as fully/broadly as is necessary... forex, Spinardi, Graham (1994) From Polaris to Trident: The Development of Us Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology published by CUP, a premier publisher, has a chapter on STRAT-X. The first few sentences mention Lloyd Wilson, WS-120A...not mentioned in this article.. I'm sure there are many more books, and many more details... your thoughts? – Ling.Nut (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your quick response! As a matter of fact, I do have a copy of From Polaris to Trident: The Development of Us Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology; actually, I started this article after having stumbled across mention of "Strat-X" in the book. At first, it did not occur to me that the few mentions about Wilson and WS-120A was that important. Having looked at the book again, I think it's best if I quickly incorporate that into the article. Thanks for the heads up. Also, I don't have any other books about STRAT-X, probably because the study was pretty obscure a subject. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh. You know, I'm sorry, I didn't express myself well. I wasn't specifically asking for that info to be added (although I appreciate it if you did; will look in a moment). . I was wondering if you had brought enough quality sources to bear on the issue.– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Done; I've brought two more books into the article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Have Nick's concerns at this article's A-class review been addressed? The other reviewers dealt with mainly technical concerns, such as prose and spotchecks. I'm not a cold war historian, but the little that I've read gives me some of the same concerns that Nick had. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing some of Nick's concerns now, although it would be preferable if he gets involved in this FAC and re-state his concerns. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sp33dyphil. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose I wasn't going to review this article as I'm going to be out of town for a week, but in light of Dan and Phil's comments, I'll do so:

The claim that the ABM system around Moscow mitigated "the threat posed by American ICBMs" is an over-statement, especially given that only a single warhead needed to reach the city to devastate it. It certainly doesn't justify the very strong sentence which follows this ("This undermined the concept of nuclear deterrence by negating the United States' ability to effectively retaliate in the event of a Soviet preemptive strike, thus making such an event a more viable option for Soviet defense planners.") which doesn't seem credible. Even if the Soviets had somehow managed to protect Moscow (which is unlikely given that the US - and British, and French - could have easily overwhelmed the defences, even if they'd worked), the US would have still crippled the Soviet Union within minutes in a nuclear war, so the deterrence was not really affected. France and Britain placed a strong emphasis on being able to destroy Moscow, but this was because they needed to be able to deter the Soviet Union with small numbers of nuclear missiles.
"According to Graham Spinardi in his book From Polaris to Trident (1994), STRAT-X was a response by the U.S. Department of Defense's Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Lloyd Wilson, to the U.S. Air Force, which was demanding a large ICBM called the WS-120A" - this sentence is difficult to follow
"while only 50 out of the original 100 Peacekeeper missiles were fielded before Peacekeeper was retired." - this reads awkwardly
"Ohio-class submarines and Trident missiles were still in service as of 2011" - needs to be updated
As I noted in the ACR, I'm pretty sure that the deployment of the systems proposed in this study attracted criticism. I can't recommend any references on this, but I'd suggest that you visit a major university library and look through its section on nuclear weapons and defence policy of the 1980s - the deployment of new nuclear weapons in the 1980s caused a significant amount of public debate.
I still don't buy the claim that this was "one of the most influential analyses ever conducted" for the U.S. Department of Defense, but I guess that's what the source says. It would be worth digging through academic journals for critical views of the plan and/or its individual components, however.
The last sentence of the article attributes the deployment of air-launched cruise missiles to this plan, yet this isn't mentioned previously in the article. Given that these weapons actually entered service (in huge numbers) and were (I think) controversial this should be covered in the article in detail.
Given the timeframe, I suspect that there was some relationship to this planning effort to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons which formed part of an integrated strategy and the implementation of the Single Integrated Operational Plan a few years previously. Do any of the sources comment on this? Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing
Simplified.
Clarified.
Updated. The claim is not controversial, so no references are provided.
Doing.
Searching for sources.
Not a lot of references were directed towards the air-launched cruiser missile. As a result, I wouldn't go into detail about it or somebody would accuse me of adding undue weight to a comparitively minor aspect.
Hmm, this is the first time a mention of SIOP has been raised. No sources I have access to mention the plan. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Seems to be a problem with image formatting in the infobox atm?
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Gallery has one image in second row, creating a lot of whitespace on my screen
File:Robert_McNamara_at_a_cabinet_meeting,_22_Nov_1967.jpg: according to our article on the subject, the WHPO is not part of the Executive Office - can you review licensing here? I have no idea whether our article is accurate or not. Also, the source link wouldn't open for me
File:Maxwell_D_Taylor_official_portrait.jpg: the source link provided includes the image, but AFAICS does not identify its creator or copyright status
File:Trident_II_missile_image.jpg: first source link is dead, second redirects to home page
File:USS_Henry_M._Jackson_(SSBN-730)2.jpg: source link is dead
File:MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg: does this have an archive catalogue or ID number? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to use one image.
Done.
That depends on the width of your screen.
Image removed.
See below.
I have no idea what to do. Would you like me to remove it?
The third link contains the image. Image replaced.

Comment is it possible to lengthen the article to cover more of the details of the review? There's only a one sentence mention of the 'Red Force' 'Soviet' arguments, for example, and nothing on the impartiality or otherwise of the review panel (executives of rocket engine companies? the mind boggles!). Also, it would be good to get more detail on each option, SIOP needs to be tied in, and the references to ALCMs definitely need to be expanded; they caused huge political debate in Europe in the 1980s ('Send Reagan on a Cruise') - see RAF Greenham Common and other articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thank you for everyone involved. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.