Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project E


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Project E

 * Nominator(s): 

The title says it all. When this article was created in November 2008, it was immediately nominated for deletion as a hoax. It wasn't. More recently I have expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67
 * I reviewed this article for GAN and it is in good shape. I think that it needs some greater precision around the nomenclature of the bombers used under this project. It uses "V-bombers" as an umbrella term to refer to them, but at one point Canberra's were used as well. I think it would be better to use "strategic and tactical bombers" or something similar to refer to the bombers that were used when it is a more general reference, and only use "V-bombers" where it just refers to the Valiant, Vulcan etc that were actually V-bombers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only used "V-bombers" to refer to the Valiant, Vulcan and Victor. I've tried to make it clear that Canberra was not a V-bomber. Is there some wording anywhere in the article from which a reader might infer that Canberra was a V-bomber? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, there is "The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force" when it seems clear that Canberra's were being considered for the role at the time, not just the planned V-bombers. Did Macmillan say "V-bombers" or was he more generic? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he said "V-bombers" and Canberras were not being considered at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, it must just be me. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments: Nice work, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "for the V-bombers, the British strategic bombers..." --> "for the V-bomber fleet, the British strategic bombers..."?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "based in Germany and the United Kingdom and assigned to NATO..." --> "based in Germany and the United Kingdom, which were assigned to NATO"?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "until 1977, superseded by the Lance missile..." --> "until 1977, when it was superseded by the Lance missile"?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the References, Nuclear weapons-free world? : Britain, Trident and the Challenges Ahead --> Nuclear Weapons-Free World?: Britain, Trident and the Challenges Ahead?
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in the body, suggest rewording: "four fell short, which is always regrettable but particularly so when nuclear weapons are involved..." --> perhaps just highlight the risk that this theoretically posed to own troops
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * suggest further tweaking it to "four fell short. In view of the danger this posed to friendly troops, as well as the other limitations, a new British project was launched to develop a better missile..." (not a warstoper, though...the wording that is, but I guess it might be if one actually did drop a nuke on the FLOT. Okay, sorry, bad joke... ) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * During an exercise in the early 1960s, the GOC BAOR accidentally called in a nuclear strike on his own headquarters, and a signals failure prevented the order being rescinded. Fortunately, it was just an exercise, and no harm was done, except to reputations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "warheads were supplied 1960" --> "warheads were supplied in 1960"
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no citation errors, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase ).
 * Prose looks good to me after a complete read through (although I agree with AR's comments above).
 * I made a few minor changes per the MOS.
 * Article seems to provide a through overview of the topic and is well referenced.
 * Images look to all be either PD or appropriately licenced and have the req'd info as far as I can see. Captions seem ok.
 * There is some overlinking of Margaret Gowing, Lorna Arnold and Richard G. Hewlett in the reference section which could probably be removed per WP:REPEATLINK. Anotherclown (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.