Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Trident (UK nuclear programme)

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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Trident (UK nuclear programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After Polaris comes Trident, chronologically the last of the articles on the British nuclear deterrent (but since I'm working through them alphabetically, there's still a couple more to go). Recently completed its GA review. Unusually, the majority of the text is not mine; much of the article was complete before I arrived, and most of it was properly sourced. The Trident boats are still on patrol out there somewhere, and their story is still unfolding, with the construction of the new Dreadnought-class under way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still have to gnome the refs when I get hold of a computer in the next few days. First of all, I am getting back in the swing, please let me know if I'm being too bold for this forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned about weight. We're talking about a government procurement programme as a result of a policy. The narrowing down of potential programmes to a single programme significantly unified the programme and policy. The policy was intensely political at the level of parliamentary parties and in the civil population.
    Decisions about the British nuclear deterrent were normally taken by cabinet subcommittees and not put to cabinet, much less parliament, for debate. Having passed over the fundamental issues, debate centred on the type of system, but in the end always came down to the cost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Goddamnit Cabinet, you had one responsibility to the house. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is to say that apart from the programme and system, this is also [un]fortunately a political and social history article. At appropriate weights.
  • And this isn't asking for much weight, but "Faslane Peace Camp is permanently… people were arrested.[119]" Doesn't explain anything in terms of the context of the encyclopaedically interesting elements of the policy / programme / systems, "Since the early 1960s a vocal body of UKians have opposed their government's independent deterrence policy, the development of programmes to fulfil this policy, and these programmes procurement of systems and their operation. Mainly organised through the CND, this movement has had limited success in influencing Labour policy, and limited success in maintaining long term protest and civil disobedience against the policy and its implementation." And you're done, similarly with Labour itself jumping on and off the stove.
    I'll see if I can find a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at how "Renewal" is structured. Apart from recentism, and a focus on the parliamentary over the social, that's more what a summary style section on the politicisation of the programme / policy might need to feel like.
    Probably because we cut the section right back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renewal probably needs a sub-article and summary style.
    There is no consensus for that at the present time. As a result of a discussion in 2016, that entire section was moved here from the Dreadnought-class submarine article, which now matches those of other submarine classes. As the replacement program picks up pace, the Renewal section could be moved to a new article, and replaced with one about decommissioning Trident. At the moment though, we haven't even got a title for such an article. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully reality and the sources will catch up. I understand what you're saying Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WEIGHT is off. It is recent-heavy. Particularly recent reviews in individual detail and renewal.
    I'm always loath to remove material that other editors felt was important. I already cut back the reviews section drastically, because I didn't think the reports had much to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that. It would definitely come up at a higher level of review though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that Negotiations comes before Policy. Policy normally precedes procurement?
    The fall of the Soviet Union completely changed the international situation. To put this up the top would not only upset the chronological order, it would make the it more difficult for the reader to follow the reasoning behind the acquisition of Trident. Policy is summarised in the background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Three policy sections to keep the policy narrative working would be a bit much. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is too big of a topic for an "all-in-one" article, and needs to be summary styled: Background; Policy; Procurement; Systems; Operations; Reviews and changes in Policy; Renewal? Items 2-5 in that list are each capable of sustaining notable articles imho.
  • And for that mess of a set of thoughts, I should probably edit your citations for style. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add some material to address your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, let me know when you're happy for me to start the gnomish citation lmftfy / review. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the Background section to add a couple of paragraphs on this. Also expanded the Opposition section, with a bit about the CND. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm taking this a step permission to gnome away! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Great work Hawkeye7!!; clear and correct explanation of the SSBN patrol pattern, and fills in a few gaps in my knowledge of the emergency/wartime firing sequence. I've unabbreviated CTF 345, which is Commander, Task Force 345. Endorse promotion once all the nitty gritty by amazing dedicated editors like Fifelfoo has been completed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments from JennyOz Hi Hawkeye, gnome visit...

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye, happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2018 (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.