Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is the main article of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom Good Topic. As such, it is one of those top level articles that consist mainly of links to subarticles, but it is free standing in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 12866 words I would oppose on length at FAC. I get that this is a complicated topic, but do we really need an entire paragraph on Scottish independence views on nuclear weapons? The SNP has only been a significant political force for a fairly short period of time. (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the nominator, but I'd say the answer to the question on the para on Scotland is a firm 'yes'. There has been a lot of commentary on the effects of Scottish independence on the British nuclear deterrent given that it is almost 100% located in Scotland, with the alternative locations for basing ballistic missile submarines in England apparently being much inferior as well as expensive to establish. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg Is this under crown copyright? If not, when did it go out of copyright in Canada (and was it prior to URAA date)?
Crown copyright - expired after 50 years ie 1995 - so before URAA date (1 January 1996). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other images look OK (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see this article at ACR. It will probably take a couple of goes to work through the article. Here are my comments:

I tend to agree that the length is excessive, especially as there are lots of high quality articles on the underpinning topics thanks to your good work. Some of the quotes are low hanging fruit, for instance.
Y Have removed most of the quotes. This reduced the size of the article to 76 kB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Top leaders including Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill" - this is a bit simplistic - Attlee was the PM and Churchill the opposition leader
Y Deleted this. Both have already been introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The para starting with 'The deployment of ships carrying nuclear weapons' feels out of place, given that it covers the 1980s and 1990s while the rest of this section is about the 1960s.
Y All the subsections in this section are like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Trident renewal' should note the British Government's recent announcement that it will be increasing the number of nuclear warheads
Y Added it to the "Posture" section instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Nuclear defence' section should note the rather extraordinary continuity of government plans (see Peter Hennessy's book The Secret State). These started with centralised bunkers, and ended up with teams of ministers who were to deploy to different parts of the country and try to run the ruins of the UK as independent entities.
I don't have that book and its not in the library - do you have a copy? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a little bit of stuff, probably on the weekend. It's an excellent book for people with an interest in this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"are opposed to the basing of the Trident system close to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city." - I thought that the SNP opposes the British nuclear weapons outright (e.g. [1])
Y Re-worded. The anti-nuclear stance in Scotland is sustained by the presence of the weapons there. Conversely, Brexit drives the support in England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" None of the 9 countries known or believed at the time to possess nuclear weapons supported the treaty." - needs a reference.
Y Looks someone inserted a comment, but added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Support I think that I may have been too tough with my comment above (as well as awfully slow on my promise to follow up on it...), and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. Will take a look at this over the coming week or so. Having to travel for work some over the next week, so it might be a slow process. Hog Farm _Talk 06:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this took longer to get to than I thought it would. Will probably still have to do this a couple chunks at a time

Not seeing where the start date of 10 April 1940 is directly referred to in the body
Y It would be the date that the MAUD Committee first met. Added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the Americans restricted cooperation to basic scientific research." - which part of the American government? Change of heart from Truman or did the Senate/House not approve the treaty
Y It's too long a story to cover here, but Groves was behind it. Congress weighs in in the next paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The reports were unlikely to have fooled the American observers" - fool them that it was successful instead of a dud, or were they trying to keep the Americans from learning it was an h-bomb, or something else? This is a little confusing to me.
Y Wrote "The reports would not have fooled the American observers into thinking they were thermonuclear explosions, as they were involved in their analysis." Watch the video! Compare what it says to what the article is telling you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A further 470 kg of plutonium was swapped between the US and the UK for reasons that remain classified" - source is from 2001. Any chance it's been de-classified since then?
Y Not that I'm aware of. Deleted, as it isn't really important enough for the top-level article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through the history material. Hopefully I can finish this off soon. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" but the 1960 cancellation Blue Streak in favour of the American Skybolt," - missing a word?
Y Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Even small number of Convair B-36 Peacemaker bombers could not make it there and back" - something seems off in this sentence
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder" - link Tedder, and maybe give his first name as well
Y First names are not used by barons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the need for a SAC presence in the UK diminished, On 3 April 1964" - should the comma between diminished and on be a period?
Y Changed comma to full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The kiloton Red Beard, was developed for use by the Canberras and the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm" - drop the comma
Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and other defensive countermeasures. in what was known as a Penetration Aid Carrier (PAC)" - I'm not sure that the period should be there
Y Changed full stop to comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Polaris had not been designed to penetrate ABM defences" - what's ABM? The acronym never seems to be explained or linked
Y Explained and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the politics section. Hog Farm _Talk 03:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The antinuclear stuff halts in the early 1980s in the article. Can it be briefly summarized if the movement has continued to grow, decreased as nuclear weapons became less common, or remained stable?
Y It has its ups and downs. As in other parts of Europe, it had its second wave in the 1980s with the NATO Double-Track Decision. In the 21st century it has become entangled with Brexit and the Scottish independence movement. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are Brian Burnell's credentials?
He was a nuclear weapons engineer who worked on early British nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. During the Vietnam War he became an anti-nuclear activist with the CND. Today he writes newspaper articles and works with historians of the British nuclear program. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nuclearweaponarchive a RS? Not familiar with the source, so asking
Carey Sublette? Generally regarded as one of the experts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend author-linking Alex Wellerstein so it's more apparent he's a subject-matter expert, since the article cites his blog
Y The article was written before the biography. Reviewed his book in the June Bugle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Nuclear Deterrent:Written statement – HCWS210". Retrieved 1 August 2016." - needs the publisher
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are William Robert Johnston's credentials? It looks like we're citing her personal website
Y An American physicist. Swapped for a reference to Wade. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Atomic Weapons Tests in: "Federation and Meteorology". Retrieved 27 June 2009." needs the publisher
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's it from me. Nice work on a large topic here. I'm not concerned about length of this one - it doesn't seem to be bloated or undue anywhere that stands out to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hog Farm _Talk 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: Another fascinating article, Hawkeye. Only a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, " The US also supplied the RAF and British Army of the Rhine with nuclear weapons" --> perhaps clarify that this included aerial bombs, missiles and artillery shells?
Y Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"reentry" --> "re-entry"?
Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"to store British and Americans bombs together in " --> " to store British and American bombs together in"?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in 1961 in favor of continuing" --> "in 1961 in favour of continuing"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"principles of the Trident missile control system is believed" --> "principles of the Trident missile control system are believed"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"– the Prime Minister would send" --> PM, given the use of the abbreviation elsewhere in the paragraph?
Y Removed abbreviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These devices prevented an attack until a launch code had been sent by the Chiefs of Staff on behalf of the President" --> "These devices were designed to prevent an attack until a launch code was sent by the Chiefs of Staff on behalf of the President"?
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The role of the Prime Minister" --> "Role of the Prime Minister"?
Y Changed as suggested. (MOS:AT vis MOS:SECTIONS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The role of the Chief of the Defence Staff" --> "Role of the Chief of the Defence Staff"?
Y Changed as suggested. (MOS:AT vis MOS:SECTIONS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Weapons Engineer Officers Tactical Trigger" --> "Weapons Engineer Officers' Tactical Trigger"?
Y Changed to "Weapons Engineer Officer's Tactical Trigger"
citation 349: "Lawrence S. Wittner" --> surname first for consistency with the other refs
Y Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in the Further reading section, the Salisbury work is inconsistently formatted; also suggest adding an ISBN
Y Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Labour government's 1998" --> suggest moving the link to earlier
the following terms may be overlinked: Red Beard, Dreadnought-class submarine, Emu Field, Maralinga, Christmas Island, Malden Island, Nevada Test Site, pre-emptive nuclear strike, Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Macmillan, Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, James Callaghan, Cold War, Tony Blair, Malcom Rifkind, nuclear weapons,
Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
emphasise v. emphasize (I see both in the article)
Y Standardised on "emphasise" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and W48 155 mm nuclear artillery shells": link for W48?
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day AustralianRupert, happy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my tardiness here with responding -- I have been moving around a lot with work recently and don't always have reliable comms, so sometimes I miss pings etc., especially when I go to one area in particular. Anyway, thanks for your efforts, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Just for clarity, it might be best if fn358 was immediately after the colon rather than at the end of bullet points.
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is https://rafbarnham-nss.weebly.com/blue-danube.html a reliable source?
Y Local history. Swapped for another site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fn 104 seems a very wide page range for such specific details?
Y Replaced with narrower page ranges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fn 106 needs a space between the two page ranges.
Y Added a space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
author-link Barton Bernstein, Andrew Brookes, Richard Gott (presumably that is he), is Michael Simmons the retired AM?, is Steve Ludlam the Steve Ludlam (engineer)?, Peter Nailor, ken Young
Y Author-linked Berstein, Brookes, Gott, Ludlam, Nailor, Young; Simmons is a different person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it really. Other than the question about the website, the sources all look reliable and the refs are all formatted well and consistently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (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.