Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Nassau Agreement
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Nassau agreement (also known as the Skybolt crisis) came about when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missile, which the UK had based its independent nuclear deterrent on. After a series of negotiations, the US permitted the UK to buy the Polaris submarine instead. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

 * three days in the Bahamas following --> "three days in The Bahamas following"
 * See MOS:THECAPS.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's the official name of the country another example is The Gambia not the Gambia. The Bahamian Government's website uses the article with an upper case. The Bahamas article also uses upper case.
 * MOS:THECAPS specifically says not to in this case.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * agreement ended the Skybolt crisis Is crisis not part of the proper noun here?
 * ✅ I guess so. For some unfathomable reason., "crisis" is capitalised but "campaign" is not.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government had then cancelled --> "The British Government had then cancelled" Unless it's written in American English but I doubt it is.
 * Lower case per MOS:POLITICALUNITS  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at these sources The Telegraph, Civil Servant, Univerity of Sussex, Gov.ie Oxford they say to use upper case in British English. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Capitalised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) I don't think NATO should be linked.
 * ✅ Unlinked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The British government trusted that the United States --> "The British Government trusted that the United States"
 * As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the British government restarted its Same as above.
 * As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first British atomic bomb was tested in Operation Hurricane on 3 October 1952 We haven't mentioned yet that it was in Australia.
 * Is it relevant?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "sputnik crisis" Not proper noun?
 * ✅ I guess so. Capitalised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * a ballistic missile with 2,000-nautical-mile Link nmi.
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Don't think NATO should be linked.
 * ✅ As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * agreement on 12 August 1954.[11][10] Re-order the refs here.
 * ✅ Re-ordered.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * with a range of 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
 * ✅ Reformatted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * range of at least 600 nautical miles (1,100 km; 690 mi) Same as above.
 * ✅ As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It carried a 4-megatonne-of-TNT Link the unit.
 * ✅ Linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * range of 1,000 to 1,500 nautical miles Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
 * ✅ Reformatted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 600 to 1,000 nautical miles (1,100 to 1,900 km; 690 to 1,150 mi) and a CEP of 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km; 1.7 mi) Same as above.
 * ✅ Reformatted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A May 1960 report to George Kistiakowsky Sounds awkward compound adjective.
 * ✅ Tweaked wording.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Link B52.
 * Already linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the Skybolt crisis Not proper noun?
 * ✅ As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * was supplied by Vice Admiral Michael Le Fanu Rank needs a hyphen.
 * The RN doesn't hyphenate any more.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at https://web.archive.org/web/20090327171943/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/uniforms-and-badges-of-rank/ this source] which states that the Royal Navy still uses the hyphen in some of their ranks.
 * ✅ Hyphenated.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * of the Suez crisis Proper noun.
 * ✅ As above  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * get the Skybolt project re-instated Per Ngram.
 * ✅ Removed hyphen.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A Polaris missile lifts off after being fired from the submerged British nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine HMS Revenge in 1986 Maybe add a citation here?
 * Don't need to cite the picture captions.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replied to the comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * |Addressed replies.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You happy with Hawkeye's responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
This article is in great shape, I reviewed it at GAN in late 2017, couldn't find a real lot then and have looked at what has changed since. I only have a few comments:
 * Lead
 * "cancellation of the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile project" with link to Air-launched ballistic missile, and drop the later link
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "enabled the UK Polaris programme"→"enabled the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile programme" with links, and drop the later links
 * ✅ re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * for Britain's nuclear deterrent link Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest "cited Britain's dependence on the United States under the Nassau Agreement as one of the main reasons..."
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find this time around. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Body
 * link ballistic missile submarine at first mention
 * ✅ linked.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * say who Dean Acheson was
 * ✅ Ooops. Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "making the prospect far less interesting" seems an odd turn of phrase
 * ✅ Deleted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence"
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * if it is necessary to italicise En route (I don't think it is as it is in widespread use in English and is in Merriam-Webster, it should be encased in per MOS:OTHERLANG
 * ✅ I think of it as French, but I believe it is in common enough usage to not require italics.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)
 * "The missiles were equipped with British warheads" which one?
 * ✅ ET.317. Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "to which various nations contribut ing ed ships"
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * say who Richard Neustadt was
 * ✅ Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Just a few things.
 * I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of the presence in Nassau of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who wanted a similar deal for his country, but was on the outs with both Kennedy and Macmillan and did not get it. In fact, the presence of Diefenbaker, who had an awkward lunch with both men, may have contributed to Kennedy's hasty departure. Google "Diefenbaker Nassau Agreement".
 * Aaarggh! This is the sort of comment that one always fears, but also the main reason that one puts articles up for review. I'll confess that I didn't know about this, and it wasn't in my sources, but now that I'm aware, I will add it to the article.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a section on Canada.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathize entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "but avoided cancellation by reprogramming $70 million from the previous year's allocation.[23]" I might say "appropriation" rather than "allocation"
 * ✅ Changed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, met with President Dwight Eisenhower, at Camp David near Washington in March 1960, and secured permission to buy Skybolt without strings attached." I would delete the second comma. Camp David is not THAT near to Washington by the way.
 * ✅ Deleted.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to update the 2019 inflation equivalents to 2020?
 * The Inflation/year template is is used, so it will automatically update the year and the amounts when more recent data is uploaded.
 * In Grimond's comment, do you want to correct B52 to B-52?
 * ✅ Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review
All sources seem to be of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently used with the following exceptions;
 * ISBNs cited seem to be a mix of 10 digit and 13 digits.
 * I just take them from the indicia of the books. A bot usually comes along and reformats them. But the MilHistBot has this functionality too, so converted them all to isbn13.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just use this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pre-2007, 10-digit ISBNs are perfectly acceptable as that's when 13-digit ones were introduced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In Bothwell, is "Univ of British Columbia Press" the formal name of the publisher?
 * (Has a look at the indicia.) It says "UBC Press", so gone with that.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Boyes needs a location.
 * It isn't in the indicia, so added from the publisher's website.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Dumbrell, John (2006). A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq." This is a book, so shouldn't this title be in title case?
 * Altered to title case.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In Jones, "Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire". Given that Milton Park is the name of the industrial estate it's on, it may be too local to mention.
 * Oh. Dropped.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Moore, Richard (2010). Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons 1958–64. Nuclear Weapons and International Security since 1945. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-21775-1. OCLC 705646392." Is Nuclear weapons and International Security since 1945 part of the title or a misplaced motto?
 * No, it is the name of the series. There are four of them so far, each covering six years.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Priest, Andrew (July 2005). "'In Common Cause': The NATO Multilateral Force and the Mixed-Manning Demonstration on the USS Claude V. Ricketts, 1964–1965". The Journal of Military History. 69 (3): 759–789. JSTOR 3397118." Should the name of the ship be italicised?
 * Italicised.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No spot-checks done. I don't own any of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D
This is a very good article. I have the following comments:
 * "and reduced the risk of a nuclear strike on the British Isles" - is this in regards to Polaris more effectively deterring the Soviets, or increasing the suitability of the British nuclear weapons to a Soviet first strike? (or both?)
 * Primarily the first: unlike bombers or missiles, it could not be neutralised by a first strike. Added words to that effect.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * " Polaris was a better weapon system for the UK's needs" - it would be good to expand upon this, as this is an important issue underpinning this article. The UK was hugely vulnerable to a first strike, with such an attack being expected to destroy the country as a functioning entity and kill most of the political and military chains of command in a matter of minutes. As a result, a nuclear weapons deterrent dependent on successfully launching bombers during the "three minute warning" wasn't very credible. Sending the deterrent to sea changed things completely, as it was now expected to survive the destruction of the UK and be able to launch a retaliatory attack.
 * Added a bit more on British nuclear strategy, which evolved over time.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did the British Polaris missiles operate under a dual key system? My understanding is that they didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The British do not use PALs.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * The source for File:Polaris-a1.jpg is a dead link
 * Found it used, but not the original. Credited as USAF photo.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While File:Robert McNamara at a cabinet meeting, 22 Nov 1967.jpg should be PD, the link is also not working Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I found it in the LBJ Library photo collection id number C7636-15A. It is PD. Updated the link.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)