Talk:Project Emily/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments/queries:

suggest a comma ahead of "to take on IRBM development"
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think sputnik crisis should be Sputnik crisis, as Sputnik is a proper noun
Done I just thought it was the Russian word for satellite. (спутник) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
link Third Air Force
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In July, it was decided that each of the locations would be designated as a squadron, with three missiles." this isn't clear, only three missiles per squadron, I thought it was three per flight? How do we get to 60 then? Also what were the "locations" mentioned?
Y Re-worded to "This was conceived as a four-squadron deployment, with each squadron controlling fifteen missiles in five flights of three missiles, with each flight at a separate location." Later: In July, it was decided that each of the locations would be designated as a squadron instead of a flight, but still with three missiles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second para of the Deployment section doesn't flow really well. When I read it, I thought "Where do the twenty squadrons come from?" Are they all missile ones? That sentence seems out of place, surely it should be at the end of the para, summarising? Might be worth stating explicitly up front that the squadrons were allocated to two Groups, No. 1 and No. 3. The rest seems ok.
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The twenty squadrons sentence still needs to go at the end of the para. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
consistency with the numero signs. Some are No. and others are Nos without the full stop
Y Decided to put the dots in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
is "missile serving chief" a thing? Or is it "service" or "servicing"?
It's "missile serving chief" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the map is incredibly busy, I suggest limiting it to the main bases, we know the satellites will be in a group around each one.
I think it's important to have them all. As you can see from the map, the satellites are not that regular. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"IWST launches were to demonstrate proficiency" should that be CTL? Also it is a bit repetitive, they were to demonstrate proficiency AND to demonstrate efficiency? Seems closely parsed.
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per MOS:COMPASS there shouldn't be a cap on "Western nuclear deterrent".
Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term is also unfamiliar and a bit ambiguous, does that mean the nuclear deterrent based to the west of the Soviet Union? Perhaps expand slightly?
Yeah. Just as you won't hear the term "North America" outside Canada, so "western nuclear deterrent" will only be used in the UK. Linked "western" to "First World"
the images all look good.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this addresses all your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 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 appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]