Talk:Project E/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in pretty good shape. I have a few comments:

Lead

cold war is a proper noun in this case, so Cold War
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
V-bombers as a term is a bit esoteric, should probably be introduced in terms of being the strategic nuclear bombers, just a suggestion
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under ~~the~~ Project E
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having introduced the V-bombers, we then find that the first to carry these bombs were Canberra's. Suggest also adding what year the Canberra's were replaced
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These were replaced by Vickers Valiant bombers as the long-range Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor replaced them in the strategic role doesn't make sense to me ie two replacements.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may be answered earlier, but did Project E weapons equip Canberra's, in which case, it wasn't just V-bombers
Yes. Note that their replacement by the Valiants in the NATO role didn't mean the Canberras stopped carrying nuclear weapons. They just stopped carrying Project E weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
link megaton
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

which the it
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that replaced the Quebec Agreement's
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations

link Blue Danube (nuclear weapon) rather than just Blue Danube, which is a dab page
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest for athe generous offer
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suggest The McMahon Act was amended in August 1954 if that is what is meant
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
V-bomber and V-Bomber is used, I suggest choosing one. I'd also suggest that the term seems to refer only to strategic bombers, not tactical ones, but is also used to refer to all nuclear-capable bombers, including the Canberra, which was not a V-bomber. Perhaps the article should just refer to nuclear-capable bombers up to this point?
No, the terms refers to bombers with names starting in a V: Valiant, Vulcan and Victor. The first was a sort of interim design. It entered service first, but did not have the desired range. As the Victors and Vulcans became available, it was relegated to the tactical role. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

suggest specifying the Third Air Force was a US one
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
specify what SACEUR was before using the acronym
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
with their Mark 7 bombs stored within RAF Germany
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Red Beard links to a film, and is linked twice
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Manhattan Project, RAF Marham, W7 warhead are overlinked
Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are ok. That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately license images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]