Talk:STRAT-X/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Though there is not a length requirement for GA, my immediate comment is that the article is a bit short, at 961 words. I've taken a quick look, and it looks pretty good. I'll probably finish the review sometime in the next hour. →Στc. 07:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Does study have to be linked?
• STRAT-X has been acknowledged by independent journalists as greatly influencing the U.S. nuclear posture. How was it influenced?

• Well, it did result in at least four weapons systems, and how the nuclear triad is operated. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a major point, but should that be added?

Background

• Were these ICBMs to be used operationally, they would have posed a significant risk to U.S. ICBMs. Needs a reference.
• Meanwhile... Please rephrase.

Study

• government red tape does not sound encyclopedic.
• In the end, a twenty-volume report covered no less than 125 different weapon-basing ideas, nine of which were reviewed in great detail.^[1][4][3] Please reorder the references, so it results in Stuff.^[1][3][4]

Findings and consequences

• Nevertheless, the former was only a prototype, while 50, out of the original 100, of the latter were fielded (the Peacekeeper had since been retired). Are commas (which have never been my strong point) after 50 and 100 necessary?

Legacy

• Per WP:ELPOINTS, external links in the body of an article are discouraged.

• All done.  Done --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Good enough for me.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: