Wikipedia:Peer review/Military budget of the United States/archive1

US military budget
There's a lot in the line of biased jargon in the, *ahem*, attempt at a justifcation for American military spending. For example, the need to "project power globally". What does that entail, other than alliteration and presumably machismo? It's the sort of meaningless buzzword employed at certain recent press conferences. My own political biases aside, it reads like a PoV-heavy, not-well-written defense from the statistics presented in the top section of the article, a section which used to appear in another article (full disclosure: I wrote that section) but was apparently moved to its current location for the purposes of the ensuing screed. Aratuk 11:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a brief article on power projection. But in short in means the ability to assert national interests anywhere in the world through non-diplomatic means. Basically its the sort of role Aircraft Carriers are intended to provide, as opposed to, say, coastal defense vessels. &mdash; RJH 20:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh good, hah! I have to eat my words. It is an appropriately phallic expression, I have to say. And there is still plenty in the article that could use a helping hand. Apparently that was a poor example. Aratuk 17:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I added an introduction and a slightly redundant paragraph about relative expenditures vs. absolute expenditures. The introductory section could also use a paragraph or two on how this particular budgeting process actually works. &mdash; RJH


 * For starters, this needs references and a proper lead. Second, it is way to short for such an important subject. And more ilinks - working - are needed. For example, how can the term military budget be redlinked? Last but not least, the external link should be moved out of the body via footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)