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

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 HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Trident (UK nuclear programme)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

After Polaris comes Trident, chronologically the last of the articles on the British nuclear deterrent (but since I'm working through them alphabetically, there's still a couple more to go). Recently completed its GA review. Unusually, the majority of the text is not mine; much of the article was complete before I arrived, and most of it was properly sourced. The Trident boats are still on patrol out there somewhere, and their story is still unfolding, with the construction of the new Dreadnought-class under way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dab links, and the ext links all appear to work (no action required)
Earwig seems satisfied that there are no copyvios: [1] (no action required)
in the lead, "a sub-strategic — but not tactical — role was required": the emdashes should be unspaced. I note, though, that later you use space endashes, so this should be consistent also. (e.g. see the Post-Cold War section)
Y Those !@#$% emdashes and endashes. They promised that they would not be a hassle when they adopted them, and they've been nothing but trouble ever since. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Negotiations section, there is a maintenance tag (expand acronym), can this be dealt with?
Y Removed the tag. As explained in the article, MISC is not an acronym. But what would Wikipedia be like today if people read the articles before tagging them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the following terms are reported as overlinked: 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement and National Audit Office (United Kingdom)
Y Removed links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" two facilities — Faslane...": same issue as the lead WRT spaced emdashes
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"and 15% didn't know" --> "did not"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"while a substantial majority of English MPs, Welsh MPs and Northern Irish MPs voted" --> "while a substantial majority of English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voted..."
Y Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the link for weapons engineering officer points to Military technology which I'm not sure is what the reader will be looking for
Y Re-linked to Engineer Officer (Royal Navy)#Weapon Engineer Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in terms of headers "Trident reviews" and "Trident renewal" probably could just be "Reviews" and "Renewal" as there isn't really a need to repeat the name of the article. That said, it's not a major point and I won't die in a ditch over it
Y Good idea. I mean renaming headings, not forgoing dying in a ditch, although that's also a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, this one looks like it is almost ready for promotion. Would you mind taking a look at the images? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this in detail at GAN last month, and have looked at the copyedits and the correction regarding Windows for Submarines. I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still have to gnome the refs when I get hold of a computer in the next few days. First of all, I am getting back in the swing, please let me know if I'm being too bold for this forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about weight. We're talking about a government procurement programme as a result of a policy. The narrowing down of potential programmes to a single programme significantly unified the programme and policy. The policy was intensely political at the level of parliamentary parties and in the civil population.
Decisions about the British nuclear deterrent were normally taken by cabinet subcommittees and not put to cabinet, much less parliament, for debate. Having passed over the fundamental issues, debate centred on the type of system, but in the end always came down to the cost. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Goddamnit Cabinet, you had one responsibility to the house. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say that apart from the programme and system, this is also [un]fortunately a political and social history article. At appropriate weights.
And this isn't asking for much weight, but "Faslane Peace Camp is permanently… people were arrested.[119]" Doesn't explain anything in terms of the context of the encyclopaedically interesting elements of the policy / programme / systems, "Since the early 1960s a vocal body of UKians have opposed their government's independent deterrence policy, the development of programmes to fulfil this policy, and these programmes procurement of systems and their operation. Mainly organised through the CND, this movement has had limited success in influencing Labour policy, and limited success in maintaining long term protest and civil disobedience against the policy and its implementation." And you're done, similarly with Labour itself jumping on and off the stove.
I'll see if I can find a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you understand by concern, and that it isn't a general criticism of the article :). I did spend fifteen minutes on it, but it was mainly using LQRS (CND) to demonstrate to myself that the material bore weight and that I should note it. I currently don't have an electronic library access. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have three. If one doesn't work I try another. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about the CND to the Trident article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cheers Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Policy section probably deserves its own article, or a section link to the relevant section of a history article, no?

The relevant history article in this case is the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I agree. I'm just puzzled that we don't have UK independent nuclear deterrence policy Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. I take it you mean a sub-article about British nuclear weapons politics and policy? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read it Andrew it seems that a policy => programme => procurements article focused on debates and decisions could be viable. Obviously not an element of the review of this great article Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Labour's vacillation over unilateralism isn't mentioned. CND aren't mentioned. They're fairly relevant to a politicised major defence policy and a politicised programme.
I will add some material to address your concerns. As the article notes, supporters of disarmament are a minority. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at how "Renewal" is structured. Apart from recentism, and a focus on the parliamentary over the social, that's more what a summary style section on the politicisation of the programme / policy might need to feel like.
Probably because we cut the section right back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Renewal probably needs a sub-article and summary style.
There is no consensus for that at the present time. As a result of a discussion in 2016, that entire section was moved here from the Dreadnought-class submarine article, which now matches those of other submarine classes. As the replacement program picks up pace, the Renewal section could be moved to a new article, and replaced with one about decommissioning Trident. At the moment though, we haven't even got a title for such an article. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully reality and the sources will catch up. I understand what you're saying Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WEIGHT is off. It is recent-heavy. Particularly recent reviews in individual detail and renewal.
I'm always loath to remove material that other editors felt was important. I already cut back the reviews section drastically, because I didn't think the reports had much to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. It would definitely come up at a higher level of review though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that Negotiations comes before Policy. Policy normally precedes procurement?
The fall of the Soviet Union completely changed the international situation. To put this up the top would not only upset the chronological order, it would make the it more difficult for the reader to follow the reasoning behind the acquisition of Trident. Policy is summarised in the background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Three policy sections to keep the policy narrative working would be a bit much. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is too big of a topic for an "all-in-one" article, and needs to be summary styled: Background; Policy; Procurement; Systems; Operations; Reviews and changes in Policy; Renewal? Items 2-5 in that list are each capable of sustaining notable articles imho.
And for that mess of a set of thoughts, I should probably edit your citations for style. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some material to address your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, let me know when you're happy for me to start the gnomish citation lmftfy / review. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the Background section to add a couple of paragraphs on this. Also expanded the Opposition section, with a bit about the CND. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking this a step permission to gnome away! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Hawkeye7!!; clear and correct explanation of the SSBN patrol pattern, and fills in a few gaps in my knowledge of the emergency/wartime firing sequence. I've unabbreviated CTF 345, which is Commander, Task Force 345. Endorse promotion once all the nitty gritty by amazing dedicated editors like Fifelfoo has been completed. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:HMS_Victorious_MOD_45155638.jpg: the metadata seems to say this is Crown Copyright - what is the source for the OGL notation? Same with File:HMS_Vanguard_MOD_45154434.jpg
All OGL images are Crown Copyright. I'm looking at [2] and [3] which say they are available under the OGL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thatcher_-_Reagan_c872-9.jpg: looking at the page linked from the copyright notice[4], I'm not seeing a PD declaration. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image is by Jack Knightlinger, the White House photographer. So it is PD. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should use a White House photo tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a White House tag. Are you using Firefox? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. There is a bug where it adds extraneous newlines. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from JennyOz Hi Hawkeye, gnome visit...

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a national movement founded in 1950s - the 1950s
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needs 'the' before 'late'?
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
time it have evolved into - had
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reentry v re-entry (though non-hyphenated only used in MIRV?)
Y Because of the article title. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in lede is separate submarine wlink necessary
It's the default. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
British government v UK government
Y Same thing, but standardised on the former. (Some countries have only one name.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The subsequent British development of the hydrogen bomb, and a favourable international relations climate created by the sputnik crisis, facilitated the amendment of the McMahon Act,[6] and the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA), which allowed Britain to acquire nuclear weapons systems from the United States, thereby restoring the nuclear Special Relationship." - hard to read. Also 'favourable' needs clarifying?
Y Not sure. Capitalised Sputnik per the NASA style guide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Labour Party... in office from 1964 to 1970, and from 1970 to 1979..." - 1974 to 1979
Y Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Britain was seen a pivotal player - as?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"More important than political differences was a shared sense of British national identity... and the Group of Eight... By the 1980s, possession of nuclear weapons had therefore become a component..." - mention years referring to here (became G8 in 1997). Ritchie is talking (in 2008) of 'This contemporary pivotal position'
Y Changed to "Group of Seven". Bowie and Platt said exactly the same thing in 1984, and Stoddart in 2014. Added extra references. This covers the whole period spanned by the article. (Nothing has changed since then either, as BrExit and the renewal of Trident demonstrate.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To accept a position of inferiority its ancient rival, France, was unthinkable. - to its ancient?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, Sir Antony Duff - his article says Defence and Intelligence, is it part of F.O.?
Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but asked that the UK delay a formal request until December to get SALT II ratified - meaning after Carter had achieved, in order for Carter to get SALT II ratified
Y Changed to "but he asked that the UK delay a formal request until December in order that he could get SALT II ratified beforehand" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
costs that had already been incurred that Kennedy had agreed to - costs that Kennedy had agreed to and had already been incurred
Y Changed to "that Kennedy had agreed to in the Polaris Sales Agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Caption "Test launch of a Trident II D-5 SLBM" - is the Trident II D-5 wlink intentional?
Y Probably copied from another article with the image. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
was secured the following year when the Conservative Party - CP already linked
Y Ah. The additional text used the terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
allies in Europe - spare fullstop after ref
Y removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Project E - wlink?
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

free-fall bombs used the Royal Navy - used by?

Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the MoD does not foresee this - MoD not explained til later
Y Don't think there is a need for the abbreviation
Federation of American Scientists - wlink?
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"When the decision to purchase Trident was announced in 1982..." - above it says "purchase Trident on 15 July 1980, and announced it in the House of Commons later that day" and later "announcement of the decision to purchase Trident in January 1980." ie 3 diff dates
Y Changed the first to "Trident II"; the third is an error, it should have been "July". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the submarine is required to remain silent - wlink radio silence?
Y There's an article on that? Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only the prime minister or a designated survivor can authorise the missiles to be fired. - contradicts the bit re commander if contact with UK lost, maybe start with 'From the UK'
No, that's okay. The sealed orders referred to are from the PM. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
World War II v Second World War
Y Standardised on the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it was welcomed by David Cameron - insert prime minister before David
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Browne of Ladyton; former Conservative Defence and Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind; and Sir Menzies Campbell - why Browne not just Des Browne (like Campbell)?
Campbell wasn't a lord then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
towards disarmament,' to ensure - swap apostrophe and comma (per ref)
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
after the 2015 General Election - lowercase like others, and wlink United Kingdom general election, 2015
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-representative polls of experts from the Royal Institute of International Affairs (commonly known as Chatham House) and the RUSI were conducted in 2010. The first found a majority for RUSI - swap order ie RUSI is mentioned second in first sentence
Y Done. I'm really iffy about retaining this small section on "two non-representative polls of experts". Your opinion sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Non-representative' means that the views of the members do not represent Chatham and RUSI as orgs? There is already a July 2010 RUSI review paper covered - did Chatham House not release anything? Whether to keep, I can't decide.
Another technical term. Normally when we conduct a political poll we try to get a representative (randomly selected) sample. What that means is that every individual in the population has an even chance of being sampled. Now, if we conduct a poll where the sample is not randomly selected, that is a non-representative poll. Like one of those on the TV or internet where people vote, then that is a self-selected sample, a common type of non-representative poll. You can get some really interesting results with these. For example, an online poll for Canberra's best athlete accorded the accolade to Short Stop, a jammer with the Canberra Roller Derby League. You normally need some statistical manipulation to extract useful data from a non-representative poll. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very sincerely for that explanation - I'm glad I asked. (Thanks also for fixing my indents.) JennyOz (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2015, a YouGov poll found - wlink YouGov
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a Survation poll found - wlink Survation
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 119 Michael Bilton (20 January 2008). "Dive bombers". The Sunday Times Magazine. London. - add url?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 162 "Trident in UK Politics and Public Opinion" (PDF). p. 22. - the two polls are on page 23
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to change that to p29 (list of surveys) rather than p23 where the actual results of the two polls are detailed?
No. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

its permanent seat the UN Security Council - before 'the', add 'on' (or 'at'?)
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:23, 18 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.