Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/GA1

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

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

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;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"
 * ✅  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 binding.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Link "Field Marshal"
 * ✅  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 on pain of
 * Modus Vivendi; is this an agreement?
 * ✅ 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
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Section 2;
 * Capitals on sputnik
 * ✅ Capitalised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Link Royal Navy
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reason for capitals on "Special Relationship"
 * ✅ Yes, but de-captalised here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;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.
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * training of personnel; by whom, US or OK or mutual
 * ✅ 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
 * ✅  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
 * ✅  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
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Link Aldermaston
 * ✅  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
 * ✅ Removed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * para 1 of section 3.4; tritium; already linked, dup-link
 * ✅ 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 &bull;&#32;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):
 * 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) 15:50, 3 December 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) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I could not decide under which section of WP:GA/W the article is to be listed, any idea? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File it under "Weapons, military equipment and programs"  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)