Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox; all good
 * Section 1;
 * Head of General Staff; what is the position presently called, link it
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Federal Military Department (EMD); I think it is FMD
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Link uranium bomb
 * 60-100 kt; what is this kt, never mentioned before, also what is 60-100, range, if so use en dash
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * use convert for 2-3 km, also use en dash
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * use conversion template while mentioning units, here are the cases, and also abbreviate the units from second mention
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Swiss federal council is over linked
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ten tons; also mention ten in numbers for consistency
 * 3,238 kilograms
 * 2,283 kilograms
 * 3 kilograms
 * 5,000 kilograms
 * sixty to one hundred kilotons
 * 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds)
 * 20 kilograms of plutonium
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Swiss Air Force Mirage III jet would have been able to carry nuclear bombs as far as Moscow; this awkward, as far as Moscow what? what is the reason
 * What is IAEA? The acronym is never mentioned before
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * less and less relevant; just "less relevant"
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Section 2; all good
 * Scherrer's image doesn't have a date
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 73.6% confidence, violation possible, this is a serious issue
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:30, 28 January 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)