Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nike-X

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nike-X edit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Nike-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is one of a series of articles on US Army anti-ballistic missile efforts spanning the 1950s to 1980s. Perhaps one of the least known among these efforts, Nike-X was by far the most technically advanced and capable. It was "defeated" largely by its cost-exchange ratio, not technical problems, and the logic behind this decision illustrates the underlying problems with the entire ABM concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like a quality article. I'm doing less at A-class these days, but I'll be happy to tackle it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 06:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just take it there @Dank:?
At least two Milhist reviewers tend to review here rather than at FAC, and lots of people review at A-class off and on. A-class reviews tend to be helpful and on-target, but occasionally there's a long wait to get 3 reviews. Your call. It's all good. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll just let it roll! Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: starting today, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Zeus problems and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a stopper at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • use re-entry vehicle and ARPA in full at first mention, then abbreviate
Done, although I only found a single RV.
  • threat tube, cost-exchange ratio, ad hoc, atmospheric filtering, decluttering, He later added that, harden, clutter fence, types, pulse chain, Search Signal Processor, Video Pulse Converter, surveillance mode, threat verification, engagement mode, space array, shouldn't be in italics per MOS:ITALICS
"A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted."
  • suggest using ABM in full the first time it is used in the body
Done.
  • would not eaffect the operation
Done.
  • jammers is mentioned, but nothing about what these were
Good point.
  • ability of the U. S. has an errant space
Fixed.
  • what the offence would do, suggest opposition
Agreed, reads more smoothly.
  • 6-to1 needs an extra dash
Fixed.
  • US Army needs some periods for consistency with U.S. Route 70, and ability of the U.S. as do others. I know the Chicago MOS deprecates the periods, but I think the curent reading for WP is that we aim for consistency within an article.
I went the "other way" instead, as I've had complains about U.S. in previous articles.
  • I don't think redlinking "see also:"'s is kosher ie HIBEX etc
I'm loath to remove this because I have an article on that in prep.
  • suggest argued against such a system using a model in which both the Soviets and the U.S. have 100 ICBMs. the current formulation is conversational
I could not find an easier way to explain this though, and similar formulations similar to this appear in Kaplan.
  • An even greater existential threat to whom? I assume the Soviets? Suggest The U.S. Navy's Polaris missile fleet posed a far greater existential threat to the U.S.S.R. than Soviet missiles posed to the U.S., because it was largely...
Fixed - and no, the threat was to the Air Force. Polaris could do everything Minuteman could, but was essentially invulnerable to attack.
  • allowing a small number of Sprints to defend
Fixed.
  • suggest force any counterforce jars a bit
Agreed.
  • suggest the tense is a bit patchy, Unfortunately, this also leads being current tense, preceded by the idea was simply
I have this problem in much of my writing, largely because I write it over long periods. If you see more examples, let me know.
  • fighting broke out seems a little colloquial in this context. Perhaps disagreements arose, while specifying between whom
Better?
  • suggest replacing would have to have with would require
Done.
  • worth pointing out that Rostow was NSA, and Rusk was SECSTATE
Indeed.
  • at the same Ccomplex
Changed, but is this the right case? It is both a description and a proper name.
  • re-entry is rendered as reentry at times, aim for consistency with hyphenation
Removed hyphens, following the RV article.
  • no alt text on images (this is an accessibility issue for screen readers, but is not required at ACR)
  • checklinks comes up with 403 (dead link) errors on Ritter 2010 and Reed 1991, and timed-out on Moeller 1995
All fixed.

Wow Maury, an incredibly detailed article on what I found to be quite a hard to grasp subject, but I was low-tech soldier, an AN/PRC-25 radio dazzled me... Jokes aside, there are lots of tech-jargon, initialisations and acronyms which all affect readability. The article also exceeds 9,500 words, making it a very long read. So, readability is definitely an issue, and I would seriously consider spinning off some sub-articles and leaving a summary in their place in order to make it more readable, especially if you want to take this to FAC. I also suggest alternating the images left and right to break up the text a bit more, rather than have them all on the right. I'd also add a few more images if you retain the article at this length. Make sure all the sources that have a numerical identifier like ISSN, OCLC etc have one. If my MOS/prose comments are addressed, I'd still be keen to support promotion on that score, but the readability issue is a real concern, and I think it might be an obstacle at FAC. Well done for a very comprehensive article on a technical and complex subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is bad. I spent a significant amount of time trying to ensure I explained every term and give clear examples of how the various tradeoffs worked out. My impetus for writing this article is that in spite of studying this issue since I was a kid, there is no single article on the topic that really explains how it is that the US figured they were better off with no defense. That is a mystery worth explaining, IMHO. Yes, it is complex, and it was even moreso for the people actually involved, but that, to me, argues for a long article that really explains it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get too miz, Maury. I'm just one reviewer, and I wouldn't be opposing at FAC, I just wouldn't support at this length. I think there is plenty of scope for a 2–3 spinoffs that would trim the content of this article down a bit. Just a reminder about the ISSNs for the magazines, and alternating the images left and right per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only things holding up my support here are sources lacking numerical identifiers, some sort of response to my point about alternating images, and perhaps a few more images given the article length. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've added any numerical identifiers that I could find. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: this is an impressive article, Maury. Thank you for your efforts. I wasn't able to get through the full article, as I am out of my depth with something this technical, so I can't comment on those aspects. But I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is too long per WP:LEAD; it may be possible to merge a paragraph somewhere;
Fixed.
  • as an American topic, I believe the article should use US English variation; however, I spotted some British English, e.g. “kilometres” and “defence”. Mainly these are in the convert templates – you can force these to use US spelling by adding “|sp=us” to the template ;
Neat trick, added.
  • “would still die in an all-out exchange…” --> I suggest potentially rewording this slightly to make it clear that this didn’t happen, maybe: “would still have died in the event of an all-out exchange”?
Removed that section.
  • the page range presentation in the References/citations appears inconsistent;
Sorry, can you be more specific? Or is that leading to...
Sure, an example of the inconsistency is "p. 2-17" v "pp. 37–38". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, yes, this is actually correct. The Bell reference uses section-dash-page numbering style. It's confusing, I agree. Open to any suggestions here.
  • the citation style appears slightly inconsistent, with the majority being short citations but some using longer form, e.g. Holst, Clearwater, Cochrane etc.
I use a simple rule: if I'm using the reference in a single para or block I use an inline, if I refer to it all over I use a redirect. This makes both the edit-text and references block easier to read and understand, IMHO.
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “File:East oblique of missile site control building - Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, Missile Site Control Building, Northeast of Tactical Road; southeast of Tactical Road South, HAER ND-9-B-9.tif” – this would probably be more visually appealing if the border were cropped. I can do this for you, if you would like;
Feel free, by all means! And do you have move permissions? The file name is a bit ridiculous.
Had to upload a new version as my computer doesn't like .tif. New file is here: File:Stanley R Mickelsen Safeguard Complex Missile Site Control (cropped).jpg. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “and President Johnson didn't ask for it” --> probably best to avoid contractions;
Fixed.
  • “there simply isn't enough” --> as above;
Done.
  • “system simply wasn't worth deploying” --> as above;
Done.
  • in the Bibliography, the works should probably be in alphabetical order, e.g. Hayward before Kaplan, Read and Ritter before Technical etc.
Done.
  • are there citations that could be added for Notes A, B, C, F, G and H?
  • “around $5 billion ($36 billion today)” --> probably best to define what “today” means, e.g. “in 2015 terms”, or whatever is accurate;
This is actually "today", it's being calculated when the article is displayed.
No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, AustralianRupert: Maury, if you're headed to FAC, you should worry. See WP:INFLATION for the template description. You want {{Inflation|US|595|1982|fmt=eq}} (their example), with fmt=eq, not fmt=c. WP:DATED prohibits (prohibits at FAC, at least) "today", regardless of whether a template is responsible. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference (at FAC) that the year is updated automatically, because the reader won't be expecting that ... they'll assume that "today" means the same thing it would on other Wikipedia pages, that is, on whatever day the edit was made. So the prohibition at WP:DATED applies. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I just noticed the figure you're inflating is $40B. See the disclaimer at the top of WP:INFLATION. I know there's a problem using the inflation template, but I don't know where to direct you for a better conversion table. Not really my area. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of this makes me laugh. If this is all we have left to argue about at the highest levels of the wiki MOS world, the project is doomed. DOOMED!
  • be careful of grocer’s apostrophes: “…and 54 Titan II's.” (should just be “Titan IIs”)
Ok, what is the rule here?
Apostrophes denote contractions or possession, in this case it is be used incorrectly for a plural. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, never heard the term "grocer’s apostrophes" before.
  • “held in a 4 bit register” --> probably should be “held in a 4-bit register” (I think…)
Fixed.
  • “where a 500 ton ball of…” --> probably should be “where a 500-ton ball of…”.
It's an nbsp there - and I've been told repeatedly never use a dash here.
G'day, it is a compound adjective, I believe. Per the Manual of Style (MOS:NUM): "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens "... I'm not really a grammarian, though, so maybe I'm wrong. I'll ping Dan. @Dank: thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
500-ton. If you use a convert template with "adj=on", you'll see they insert the hyphen in front of a written-out unit of measure (ton), but not in front of an abbreviation (ml). - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have read over the article again, and overall I'm fairly happy that it meets the A-class criteria. If my points above can be addressed, I'd be happy to support promotion. Happy to discuss any points of my review that you don't agree with. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. I think there is just Sturm's comment about the radars left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support a truly impressive article. I found the technical aspects, but especially the strategic considerations behind its (non-)deployment very well explained. I made a few tweaks here and there, but I feel the prose is fine. Well done! Constantine ✍ 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry for the tardiness in all this, but as of 320am last night I'm a new dad again! I'll be getting to any lingering points Wednesday. Peace! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, congratulations! Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say hello to the little one for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, poor guy was a little early on the draw, so after a week sleeping in a chair at the hospital we got the all clear on Sunday and finally came home. So far so good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This article looks in fairly good shape to me so I've only got a few comments:
    • Every paragraph of the lead starts using the same construction: "Nike-X was", "Nike-X addressed" and "Nike-X would be". This is a bit repetitive so perhaps reword a few?
    • Per Wikipedia:Hatnote linking to redlinks is generally not preferred, that said if you are intending on creating these articles shortly I wouldn't advise removing them just to have to add them again later.
      • Removed.
    • It might pay to briefly mention the Cold War and the Nuclear arms race and other related concepts in order to provide context as to why this system was developed.
      • Very true.
    • A few abbreviations used are not expanded at first use (I saw ICBM and TACMAR at least, not sure if there are others)
      • Fixed.
    • There seems to be a typo or some sort artifact from an accidental edit that is resulting in a url being displayed here in the text: "and the MAR would then perform triangulation.[73] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nike-X&action=edit#..."
    • The use of inconsistent citation formats (i.e. short cites such as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 5–25" and longer cites "Clearwater, John (1996). Johnson, McNamara, and the Birth of SALT and the ABM Treaty 1963–1969. Universal-Publishers. p. 33. ISBN 9781581120622") probably needs to be rectified to meet the criteria.
      • As noted above, this was deliberate and I know it passes FAC (AI Mk. IV).
        • Ok, if FAC has no issues with it then its up to you I guess (although I maintain that it is inconsistent, also it means that your bibliography is incomplete). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ranges in your short cites are not always consistently presented. For instance they should be "pp.1–2" using a double "p" and an en-rule. In some places you do this correctly and in others you use a single "p" and a hyphen, for instance "p.1-2"
      • And this is due to the Bell reference, which uses this format. I'm open to any/all suggestions on better ways to address this.
        • Take refs 67 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-22") vs 68 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 2–22"). Its a subtle difference but do each of these citations refer to the same work and pages? If so it needs to follow the same format (i.e. "pp" and use an enrule) otherwise the sfn template will not automatically consolidate them because it assumes they are different). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also ref 78 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 9–1"). Should this be "pp. 9–10"? Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bibliography is not quite alphabetically sorted, i.e. you have the author "Technical Editor" listed after "Pursglove" but before "Reed".
      • Fixed.
    • Some of the works in the bibliography are missing an isbn/oclc/issn etc. These can be found at Worldcat.org if you decide you want to add them to be consistent with the other works used. Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of these have been done now, although I note that ref 42 "Freedman, Lawrence (2014). U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat. Princeton University Press. p. 123." still lacks an isbn. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A couple of other (very minor) points:
          • There are a few websites used as citations which seem to be missing some bibliographic info (specifically access dates, but also sometimes publisher and author etc (e.g. Orlov, Alexander. "A "Hot" Front in the Cold War". Central Intelligence Agency" and "Squirt Missile Ready to Fire". White Sands Missile Range Museum"). If this information is available it should probably be added.
          • All works used as references are missing place of publication. As far as I'm aware its not a requirement but you might consider adding it (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • for everyone at the Holloman Air Force Base Delete the "the"
Fixed.
  • Suggest that these two sentences be combined: To hold the 5,800 staff and their dependents, the radar and its underground equipment areas had to be completely emptied. Starting in 1970, the radar began to be dismantled.
Nice, like that one.
  • Need links for some specialized electronic/computer terms like diode, strip line, and register
Added.
  • S band, etc., should be hyphenated when followed by a noun like radar.
Following the articles on these, there's no hyphen.
  • The detailed sections on the radars should probably be spun off into their own articles and summarized here, focusing on the operational aspects. They're extremely technical and I expect that most readers will bog down in them or skip them entirely.
  • That's all I caught on my first readthrough. I'll give it another pass once all of the remaining comments have been addressed. Take your time, I expect that sleep will be in short supply for a while. And, BTW, congrats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

OK I've made lots of little tweaks, and now I think we've covered most of the above. In summary:

  • a couple more refs, more to provide readable information than to cover gaps in the existing ones
  • reduced the radar sections to remove most of the tech and be largely a description of how and why it did what it did
  • Various GR tweaks and such

Which leaves:

  • I did not move the images. Reading over the MOS it seems this is used mostly when the images would otherwise be too clustered. If there's a problem here it's the opposite one, and when I did some experiments moving them I found they moved over the sub-headers which was very bad looking.
  • Page numbering. The problem here is the Bell references, which uses dashes in its page numbers. I'm open to any suggestions here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: you are the only reviewer who may not have come to a resolution on this article. I'm thinking that this is pretty much ready for passing, unless you have any repechages? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Nike-X&oldid=791880488"