Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement
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) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Nassau Agreement[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Nassau Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Nassau agreement (also known as the Skybolt crisis) came about when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missile, which the UK had based its independent nuclear deterrent on. After a series of negotiations, the US permitted the UK to buy the Polaris submarine instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments by CPA-5[edit]
- three days in the Bahamas following --> "three days in The Bahamas following"
See MOS:THECAPS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- But that's the official name of the country another example is The Gambia not the Gambia. The Bahamian Government's website uses the article with an upper case. The Bahamas article also uses upper case.
- MOS:THECAPS specifically says not to in this case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- But that's the official name of the country another example is The Gambia not the Gambia. The Bahamian Government's website uses the article with an upper case. The Bahamas article also uses upper case.
- agreement ended the Skybolt crisis Is crisis not part of the proper noun here?
- The British government had then cancelled --> "The British Government had then cancelled" Unless it's written in American English but I doubt it is.
- Lower case per MOS:POLITICALUNITS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Look at these sources The Telegraph, Civil Servant, Univerity of Sussex, Gov.ie Oxford they say to use upper case in British English. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) I don't think NATO should be linked.
- The British government trusted that the United States --> "The British Government trusted that the United States"
- the British government restarted its Same as above.
- The first British atomic bomb was tested in Operation Hurricane on 3 October 1952 We haven't mentioned yet that it was in Australia.
- "sputnik crisis" Not proper noun?
- a ballistic missile with 2,000-nautical-mile Link nmi.
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Don't think NATO should be linked.
- agreement on 12 August 1954.[11][10] Re-order the refs here.
- with a range of 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
- range of at least 600 nautical miles (1,100 km; 690 mi) Same as above.
- It carried a 4-megatonne-of-TNT Link the unit.
- range of 1,000 to 1,500 nautical miles Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
- 600 to 1,000 nautical miles (1,100 to 1,900 km; 690 to 1,150 mi) and a CEP of 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km; 1.7 mi) Same as above.
- A May 1960 report to George Kistiakowsky Sounds awkward compound adjective.
- Link B52.
- As the Skybolt crisis Not proper noun?
- was supplied by Vice Admiral Michael Le Fanu Rank needs a hyphen.
- The RN doesn't hyphenate any more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Look at https://web.archive.org/web/20090327171943/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/uniforms-and-badges-of-rank/ this source] which states that the Royal Navy still uses the hyphen in some of their ranks.
- of the Suez crisis Proper noun.
- get the Skybolt project re-instated Per Ngram.
- A Polaris missile lifts off after being fired from the submerged British nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine HMS Revenge in 1986 Maybe add a citation here?
I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: You happy with Hawkeye's responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
This article is in great shape, I reviewed it at GAN in late 2017, couldn't find a real lot then and have looked at what has changed since. I only have a few comments:
- Lead
- "cancellation of the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile project" with link to Air-launched ballistic missile, and drop the later link
- "enabled the UK Polaris programme"→"enabled the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile programme" with links, and drop the later links
- for Britain's nuclear deterrent link Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
- suggest "cited Britain's dependence on the United States under the Nassau Agreement as one of the main reasons..."
- Body
- link ballistic missile submarine at first mention
- say who Dean Acheson was
- "making the prospect far less interesting" seems an odd turn of phrase
- "Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence"
- if it is necessary to italicise En route (I don't think it is as it is in widespread use in English and is in Merriam-Webster, it should be encased in {{lang-fr}} per MOS:OTHERLANG
- "The missiles were equipped with British warheads" which one?
- "to which various nations contribut
inged ships" - say who Richard Neustadt was
That's all I could find this time around. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
- Just a few things.
- I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of the presence in Nassau of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who wanted a similar deal for his country, but was on the outs with both Kennedy and Macmillan and did not get it. In fact, the presence of Diefenbaker, who had an awkward lunch with both men, may have contributed to Kennedy's hasty departure. Google "Diefenbaker Nassau Agreement".
- "but avoided cancellation by reprogramming $70 million from the previous year's allocation.[23]" I might say "appropriation" rather than "allocation"
- "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, met with President Dwight Eisenhower, at Camp David near Washington in March 1960, and secured permission to buy Skybolt without strings attached." I would delete the second comma. Camp David is not THAT near to Washington by the way.
- Do you want to update the 2019 inflation equivalents to 2020?
- The {{Inflation/year}} template is is used, so it will automatically update the year and the amounts when more recent data is uploaded.
- In Grimond's comment, do you want to correct B52 to B-52?
- Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
All sources seem to be of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently used with the following exceptions;
- ISBNs cited seem to be a mix of 10 digit and 13 digits.
-
- Pre-2007, 10-digit ISBNs are perfectly acceptable as that's when 13-digit ones were introduced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- In Bothwell, is "Univ of British Columbia Press" the formal name of the publisher?
- Boyes needs a location.
- "Dumbrell, John (2006). A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq." This is a book, so shouldn't this title be in title case?
- In Jones, "Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire". Given that Milton Park is the name of the industrial estate it's on, it may be too local to mention.
- "Moore, Richard (2010). Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons 1958–64. Nuclear Weapons and International Security since 1945. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-21775-1. OCLC 705646392." Is Nuclear weapons and International Security since 1945 part of the title or a misplaced motto?
- "Priest, Andrew (July 2005). "'In Common Cause': The NATO Multilateral Force and the Mixed-Manning Demonstration on the USS Claude V. Ricketts, 1964–1965". The Journal of Military History. 69 (3): 759–789. JSTOR 3397118." Should the name of the ship be italicised?
Support by Nick-D[edit]
This is a very good article. I have the following comments:
- "and reduced the risk of a nuclear strike on the British Isles" - is this in regards to Polaris more effectively deterring the Soviets, or increasing the suitability of the British nuclear weapons to a Soviet first strike? (or both?)
- " Polaris was a better weapon system for the UK's needs" - it would be good to expand upon this, as this is an important issue underpinning this article. The UK was hugely vulnerable to a first strike, with such an attack being expected to destroy the country as a functioning entity and kill most of the political and military chains of command in a matter of minutes. As a result, a nuclear weapons deterrent dependent on successfully launching bombers during the "three minute warning" wasn't very credible. Sending the deterrent to sea changed things completely, as it was now expected to survive the destruction of the UK and be able to launch a retaliatory attack.
- Did the British Polaris missiles operate under a dual key system? My understanding is that they didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review - pass[edit]
- The source for File:Polaris-a1.jpg is a dead link
- While File:Robert McNamara at a cabinet meeting, 22 Nov 1967.jpg should be PD, the link is also not working Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (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.