Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the trowel is in the Smithsonian. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few minor comments:

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all reliable and of high quality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • What kind of style of English do you use? American, British or Australian? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Australian English, and the spell checker is set to that; but the article should be in British English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Kingdom on nuclear weapons cooperation American cooperation.
    checkY Hmmm. The Brits seem inconsistent on this one. Oh well.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the US has nuclear cooperation agreements Same as above.
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Operation Grapple test on 8 November 1957 remove 1957 here the readers know we're still talking in 1957.
    checkY Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium American kilograms. However it is alowed to use kilograms in the UK. If you don't want that then it should be kilogrammes. I let you choose which one.
    We'll stick to "kilogram" per the UK's National Measurement Office. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tonnes and don't forget to add long tons too and link it aswell.
    No need. Perversely, kilograms and tonnes are the imperial units for fissile materials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Combined Development Trust to coordinate their American coordinate.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • commercial and military cooperation into the post-war American cooperation.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 4 July 1945, Wilson gave British agreement for the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.[9] On 8 August 1945 the Prime Minister Remove both 1945s here.
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman about future cooperation in nuclear American cooperation.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) ended technical cooperation Same as above.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should English units be primary or metric because tonnes is metric?
    MOS:UNITS: In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric There are exceptions, none of which are applicable in this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they proposed limiting the British program in return American programme.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 1 November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike Remove 1952 here.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • US v. U.S.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • uranium ore from Canada, and coordinating the war plans American coordinating.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 15 May 1957.[50] The Grapple tests were facilitated by the United States, which also claimed the island.[51] Although the initial tests were unsuccessful,[52] the Grapple X test on 8 November 1957 achieved Remove both 1957s
    checkY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington, DC v. Washington, D.C.
    checkY Used "DC". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all the 1957s (except the first one) in the last paragraph in the Sputnik crisis section.
    checkY Left a couple. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pressed for more discretion to cooperate with all American cooperate.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • would pay the UK $30 per gram for plutonium that cost $12 per gram to produce the UK uses grammes in stead of grams.
    Per the above, sticking with grams. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • using Red Snow cost £500,000 compared Unlink the British pounds here.
    I was asked to link it. See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the US nuclear weapons program American program.
    checkY Got it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australia, Canada, Namibia, South Africa, the United States and Zaire Link Zaire and Namibia didn't exist so I reckon we should use link South West Africa here.
    No, because the context runs into the 21st century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other nuclear material was also acquired You mean another?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which it considered to be a joint discovery You mean is instead of it?
    No. "it" refers to the British government" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • our status as a first class power First class needs a hyphen.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • over a ten year period Use ten-year or remove all and use ten years.
    checkY That would seem better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • high-speed cameras, mechanical safeing You mean safely?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • cylindrical symmetry, cross sections Cross sections needs a hyphen.
    Don't think so. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D[edit]

Support This article is in great shape. I have only two minor comments:

  • "The British hydrogen bomb programme successfully tested a hydrogen bomb in the Operation Grapple test" - I'd suggest rewording to avoid repeating 'hydrogen bomb' and 'test' in the same sentence
  • checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite concerns that the 10 October Windscale fire might prove a stumbling block in negotiations" - I'd suggest saying why
    checkY Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, would you be willing to take a look at the image licensing on this one, please? It looks close to promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Splendid_S106.jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it has been taken down. Good thing it was copied to Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it though. Is there an alternate link that could confirm the given licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1958_US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement&oldid=911625554"