Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Other nuclear material was also acquired from the United States under the treaty; only one material?

    This is grammatically correct. ("one material" is not though) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Conversion missing for "5.4 tonnes", "7.5 tonnes"

    Imperial/US conventional units for fissile materials is metric, so no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Link "Hyde Park Agreement"

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Please explain its relation with the Quebec Agreement

    "extended both commercial and military cooperation into the post-war period" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • was not binding -> did not bind

    "was not binding" is correct. See wikt:binding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Field Marshal"

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • What does "pain of death" mean?

    It's an English legal lemma. It means that the death penalty applies. See wikt:on pain of

  • Modus Vivendi; is this an agreement?

    Y Yes. Added that. See [wikt:modus vivendi]]. Nut here it refers to a specific agreement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The "Meanwhile" Soviet Union responded

    No, the chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Bermuda Conference"

    There's no article. It would be a red link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • in the Operation Grapple

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 2;
  • Capitals on sputnik

    Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Link Royal Navy

    Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Any reason for capitals on "Special Relationship"

    Y Yes, but de-captalised here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • by far the most comprehensive; "comprehensive" in which sense? In the size of the agreement or in exchange of technology etc.

    Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • training of personnel; by whom, US or OK or mutual

    Y Mutual. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • There are also confidential intelligence matters covered by the agreement -> Confidential intelligence matters were also covered by the agreement

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • section 3.1; para 3; What is "HEU"? Never defined in the previous text, please define it on the first mention

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Link "Herbert Loper" on the first mention in para 1 of section 3.3

    He already appeared in the previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • J.H.B. Macklen -> J. H. B. Macklen; per MOS:INITIALS

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Link Aldermaston

     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • para 1 of section 3.4; highly enriched uranium (HEU); has been already linked and defined before, dup-link

    Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • para 1 of section 3.4; tritium; already linked, dup-link

    Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • conversion for 21.86 tonnes

    Fissile material is always in metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Section 4; all good
• All images OK
• External links check shows a dead link

  {{tick} Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Copyvio check 1, 2, 3 shows violation possible, but they are mostly due to quotations. So no issues.

G'work, nice article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• @Hawkeye7: I could not decide under which section of WP:GA/W the article is to be listed, any idea? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  File it under "Weapons, military equipment and programs" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)