Talk:Italian nuclear weapons program/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm picking this one up. Review will follow soon. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
More to come... Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Background
 * Italian physicists, like Enrico Fermi had been at the forefront of the development of the nuclear fission and the creation of the first nuclear weapon.
 * That's not what the source says. Fermi assembled a group known as the Via Panisperna boys. They were at the forefront of nuclear physics in the 1930s, but the team broke up in 1938. Ettore Majorana died, and Fermi, Bruno Pontecorvo, Emilio Segrè and Franco Rasetti emigrated to the North America. This left only Oscar D'Agostino and Edoardo Amaldi in Italy. In the US, Fermi was involved in the development of the first nuclear reactors, and he and Segrè worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory. I can supply more sources if you want them.
 * That would be great. I have amended this. Hopefully it puts the point more clearly now.
 * Fermi and others repudiated nuclear weapons after atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
 * This is not in the source, and is not true. Fermi continued work on nuclear weapons, particularly the Super. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, but worked on it when it was approved.
 * Removed. I don't think this is relevant as it concerns the US programme. Please tell me if I should put something back in.
 * Italy had no better access to the technology than any other country at the end of World War II
 * Obviously, the US nuclear weapons already, and after that came the main countries involved in the Manhattan Project like the UK and Canada, and the ones with active wartime projects like the USSR and Germany. Suggest deleting this sentence.
 * Removed.
 * However, Italy was quick to realise
 * Although you haven't listed Antonio Varsori, "Italy and the Western Defence 1948-55: The Elusive Ally", as a source, it's the essay before Nuti's in Securing Peace in Europe, 1945–62, and it makes it clear that this was hardly the case. Suggest deleting this phrase.
 * Removed and reworded the rest of the sentence. Hopefully that is clearer now.
 * The Italian Army was particularly keen to acquire nuclear weapons, seeing them primarily in a tactical role
 * Finally, a sentence that is correct. However, I suggest that this be expanded to explain to the reader why this was the case: that the Army was confronted with defending mountain passes, which would channel any Warsaw Pact advance, and therefore made ideal targets for nuclear weapons.
 * Done.
 * Starting with the second paragraph, we're not in background any more. Insert a new heading here.
 * Done.
 * Italy started hosting nuclear weapons under NATO's nuclear sharing policy. As the very next sentence makes clear, this is incorrect. The Honest John and Corporal missiles belonged to two US Army battalions deployed to Italy, although they came under Italian command. (We don't italicize the names.) Consider adding additional details about this and how they were intended to be used from the source, as this would be of great interest to the reader.
 * Done.
 * fn 5 needs publisher and access date.
 * Removed as it was not relevant to the time.
 * The US was unable to supply the Europeans with nuclear technology due to the McMahon Act. Consider adding this.
 * I have clarified this. Italy was banned from developing nuclear weapons in the Paris Peace Treaties.
 * Pressure was made on the United States -> "Pressure was applied on the United States".
 * Done.
 * On 26 March 1959, agreement was made -> "On 26 March 1959, an agreement was signed"
 * Done.
 * Link dual key, 36th Air Brigade (Italy)
 * Done. Dual key redirects to a page that does not mention the Italian situation. I understand from the literature that the Italians saw doppio chiave as something different to the US.
 * Not surprising. You could add a bit to the article about this. I described the how the dual Key system worked in the Project Emily article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving the last paragraph of multilateral force up here to complete the story. Again, more details could be added from the source.
 * Good idea. I have also adjusted the lead in the following paragraph so that it hopefully flows a bit better.
 * Thank you simongraham (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made a series of additional changes, including tightening some prose, moving a reference into the correct position in alphabetical order, removing fixed widths on images (MOS:IMGSIZE), and adding a little bit at the bottom about the F-35 and B-61. Revert anything you disagree with. The sources are excellent! (Although I should mention that I am currently arguing the case that the Encyclopedia Astronautica is a reliable source at Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1.) If you want to take the article to A-class or FAC, it will need to be expanded by drawing more heavily on them. The strength of the article is the way that it demonstrates how Italy's policies differed from the UK, Germany and France. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)