Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Section 1;
    • Link "Hyde Park Agreement"
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • was not binding -> did not bind
      "was not binding" is correct. See wikt:binding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link "Field Marshal"
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "pain of death" mean?
      It's an English legal lemma. It means that the death penalty applies. See wikt:on pain of
    • Modus Vivendi; is this an agreement?
      checkY Yes. Added that. See [wikt:modus vivendi]]. Nut here it refers to a specific agreement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Meanwhile" Soviet Union responded
      No, the chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link "Bermuda Conference"
      There's no article. It would be a red link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Operation Grapple
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section 3;
    • by far the most comprehensive; "comprehensive" in which sense? In the size of the agreement or in exchange of technology etc.
      checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • training of personnel; by whom, US or OK or mutual
      checkY Mutual. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also confidential intelligence matters covered by the agreement -> Confidential intelligence matters were also covered by the agreement
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • section 3.1; para 3; What is "HEU"? Never defined in the previous text, please define it on the first mention
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • J.H.B. Macklen -> J. H. B. Macklen; per MOS:INITIALS
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link Aldermaston
       Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • para 1 of section 3.4; highly enriched uranium (HEU); has been already linked and defined before, dup-link
      checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • para 1 of section 3.4; tritium; already linked, dup-link
      checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • conversion for 21.86 tonnes
      Fissile material is always in metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 • mail) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement/GA1&oldid=1076319052"