Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polaris (UK nuclear programme)

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Polaris (UK nuclear programme)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Polaris (UK nuclear programme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Let me know when the things above are sorted, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access to US Defense imagery is now restricted to US military personnel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. How does that affect us here? Can we still use it? Or do we need an OTRS ticket to verify usage? Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't affect us at all. The image is still in the public domain. See Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8#Image source is a password protected access website. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, my concern is more if it is FOUO, and non-attainable through an FOIA request, it is less behind a paywall and more unattainable in general. Could we perform an FOIA or try to send imagery, or other method to actually show the image is PD? @Nikkimaria: what do you normally do in this situation? Kees08 (Talk) 09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could do that, but it technically isn't necessary - as Hawkeye says, even with the access restriction the images themselves are still PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; Hawkeye: FOIA or OTRS ticket if you want to go the extra mile, otherwise nevermind on that points. Kees08 (Talk) 10:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I added a little more to the author, as requested in the source material. Let me know if you disagree. Otherwise, the image review is done and I support based on that. Kees08 (Talk) 04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see a high quality article on such an important topic. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "and in June he secured the approval of the Admiralty to build a nuclear powered submarine" - wasn't he the boss of the Admiralty? Do you mean that he secured approval (from the rest of the government, and especially the Treasury) for the RN to build a nuclear sub?
    That came the following year. Changed to "Board of the Admiralty". As First Sea Lord, he wasn't actually the boss of the Admiralty, just the professional head of the Royal Navy. The boss was the First Lord of the Admiralty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea of moving the nuclear deterrent away from the densely populated UK and out to sea had considerable appeal in Britain" - It could be noted that a broader issue was that the V-bomber force was by this time highly vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike (as there would only be around 3 minutes warning). Moving the deterrent to sea was important for maintaining its credibility.
    Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Cabinet Defence Committee meeting on 23 January 1963 approved the plan for four boats, with the Minister of Defence, Peter Thorneycroft noting that this would be cheaper and faster to build" - it's not clear what the four subs were cheaper and faster to build than (the hybrid attack-ballistic missile boats?)
    Just that four boats would be cheaper and faster to build than eight. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From memory, Peter Hennessy and James Jinks' book on the RN submarine service is pretty critical of the quality of the subs built by Cammell Laird.
    Your memory is fine. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding something about the operations of the Polaris force - eg, to note how the subs operated, that their crews managed to maintain a continuous deterrent, that the subs are believed to have never been tracked by the Soviets, and the problems experienced with all of the above as the boats wore out. The above book covers this. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't got it or read it, but it's in the library at ADFA, so I'll take a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a paragraph on this to the end of the "Operations" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, not a lot stood out to me. Nice work. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links, but there is one duplicate link: nuclear electromagnetic pulse
    checkY Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ext links all work
  • the article appears well referenced and comprehensive to me, although I am not an expert on the topic
    You will be if you read through all the books and journal articles on the reference list. 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "1972–73" --> "1972–1973"
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the first sentence of the lead, Britain or the United Kingdom is mentioned four times. I wonder if there is a way to reduce this repetition?
    checkY Removed two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polaris program" --> "programme"?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo[edit]

Support. same disclaimer as on Trident Fifelfoo (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similarly with regard to opposition to the programme. Probably a two para job at most: before procurement: popular / labour see-saw; during operation: popular / labour see-saw. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a bit about the 1964 election in a new Reactions section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    cheers. Going to read it and the whole article now for the pleasure of reading it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • References good. Short cites good. Cites in notes section checked / lmftfyed. Inflations "good" (I oppose their use as OR, but outside of OR are the "true" ones "truely" cited). en vs dash in cites and refs good. HQRS good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2018 (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/Polaris_(UK_nuclear_programme)&oldid=850312136"