Talk:Gen 75 Committee/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks in good shape. I have a few comments:

the lead needs expansion to summarise the article
Y expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the main article hatnote at the top of the article needs initial cap, and I suggest that this use of the main template isn't really within scope. If it is considered necessary, perhaps the {{Broader}} template could be used.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are several duplicate links, WWII, nuclear weapons, Tube Alloys, Lord President and PM of the UK
Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The initial caps on Cabinet doesn't look right, I think United Kingdom cabinet committee is an indication that the initial cap should be dropped
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest introducing (for General) as soon as you introduce Gen (including in the lead), otherwise the reader is left wondering what it stands for
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and ~~the~~ Stafford Cripps
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After the Gen 75 Committee ~~was~~ decided
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it says that there was a project called Tube Alloys, and then that a directorate of Tube Alloys coordinated Tube Alloys. Seems redundant.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "at the Gen 75 Committee meeting on 11 October 1945", to separate the date from Gen 75 and improve the flow
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
second instance of Sir John Anderson should probably just be Anderson
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ROF should be spelt out at first mention as it begs the question
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
uranium metal was priduced
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "Officials there rejected his" if that is what is meant
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plus ~~the~~ Alexander
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a change to the structure. The Nuclear weapons section seems to me to be more of a Background section, to provide the setting for Britain's involvement in the development of nuclear weapons. I suggest putting it first, then going on to the Origin, Composition and Activity sections.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the image is appropriately licensed.

That's me done, placing on hold for these comments to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed image with appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]