Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser_brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [1].

1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual article, which grew organically from humble beginnings. I overhauled it in 2017. It wasn't my intention that it could be a featured article someday, but in its current form I think that it might be. I'd like to draw your attention to the pic of Eisenhower laying the cornerstone for the AEC's headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. The AEC decided to relocate there so it would be safe when Washington, DC, was razed by an atomic blast. Somebody thought that it would be cool if Eisenhower laid the foundation stone with a trowel made from radioactive uranium that had been in the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1. (With a wooden handle made from one of the benches at Stagg Field.) The Secret Service did not agree, so it is not the one he is using in the picture. Today the radioactive trowel is in the Smithsonian. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by PM[edit]

I looked at this closely during its Milhist ACR, so only have pretty minor points here:

  • in the lead, suggest "shocked the American public with the launch of Sputnik"
  • in the lead, suggest "for the use by the Royal Air Force"
  • suggest "Many of Britain's top scientists participated in the Manhattan Project" and pipe the article link to "participated in the Manhattan Project"
  • the sentence beginning "By the end of 1947..." doesn't make sense to me. If the uranium was stockpiled in the UK, why is it relevant that the McMahon Act didn't allow it to be exported from the US?
  • "the uranium needed to fuel it over for ten years"
  • "The S5W had a Nnuclear reactor core"

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • Some 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium No long tons? Link them both too.
  • and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) between 1960 and 1979 Same as above.
    Linked plutonium. The imperial system uses tons for non-precious metals, troy ounces for precious metals, kilograms for fissile metals. Hence no conversion is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tonnes vs long tons?
  • Eisenhower and Churchill discussed the possibility Maybe explain here that Churchill was prime minister again because I think non-Britons mightn't know this?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Operation Grapple test series at Christmas Island Are we speaking about the Australian Christmas Island or Kiribati's one because the link goes to Kiribati's one?
    The one at Kiribati. Added "in the Pacific" to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • program vs programme?
    Programme. Unfortunately, I cannot change the spelling in the categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • US would pay the UK $30 per gram Link dollar here.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • US in exchange for 6.7 kg of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of HEU between 1960 and 1979. A further 470 kg of plutonium No English units?
  • had a stockpile of 21.86 tonnes of HEU, about 80 years' No English units?
    Imperial system. See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • high-speed cameras, mechanical safeing, liquid and solid explosive Typo here? I couldn't find any dictionary who uses the word safeing?
    It is spelt that way in the source, but probably should be "safing". Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another thing Suez Canal is a proper noun. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed but... I can't find it in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Eisenhower administration" section you can find them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean the Suez crisis? The 1956 imbroglio where the UK, France and Israel teamed up to invade Egypt, and the US imposed economic sanctions on them? I'm not sure whether this should have a capital C or not. It does in its article, but not in the Sputnik crisis article. I used lower case for both. Is that incorrect? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the 1956 crisis in Egypte. Well what I can tell is MOS:MILTERMS says accepted names of wars should be always captalised. But I'm not sure the Sputnik crisis should be also captalised because it is not following MOS miliary rules it could be because a proper noun should be capitalised. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh damn I know realised I have using Suez Canal instead of the crisis, my bad. Anyway I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
  • All links are live and working according to the tool.
  • Be consistent in how the author name is formatted; a couple of occasions use Last, First and others use First Last.
  • Similarly, be consistent in formatting for Hansard between refs #78 and #81.
  • The external links section could do with appropriate formatting.

Generally very good, not much to nit pick here. Harrias talk 17:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed in a series of changes [3] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all good. Harrias talk 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Quebec Conference image. Suggest amending to 'Seated (from the left) are... '. Why a mix of commas and semi colons?
  • Replaced semicolons with commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Gave it a read over. Just a couple of things:

  • "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" The whole Congress or just the Senate (since it is apparently a treaty).
    The source says "It sailed through the JCAE hearings. Once the full Congress approved of it on July 30, 1958, the the Anglo-American nuclear partnership was fact." This is because it required the amendment of the McMahon Act, hence both houses. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything on public opinion/protest that is worth saying. This was born in part out of US public reaction to Sputnik, so was the reaction positive? Or of legislative opposition, either of the original agreement or the renewals?
    There was no legislative opposition. Renewals seem to have been handled by the administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canada seems to have been a part of the earlier agreements, but at some step it seems to vanish, though you do mention it as a nation that made its own agreement with the US. Is there something worth saying about why it dropped out.
    It didn't drop out; the 1948 Modus Vivendi remained in force with regard to Canada, and was not superseded by the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, which did not apply to Canada. Canada acquired nuclear weapons in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reads well. I don't see any other problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, HNY! just a few minor comments...

  • weapons of this supreme importance."[30] - move full stop outside
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a counter-offer, they proposed limiting the British programme in return for American bombs. - 'they' is not clear here in new para. Maybe swap to Britain?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first British atomic bomb was successfully tested in Operation Hurricane - locate? ie off the coast of Western Australia?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Soviet Union responded with the test of Joe 4 - responded to Ivy Mike?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • December 1953, Eisenhower and Churchill,[40] who had become prime minister again on 25 October 1951, - move the comma after Churchill back to after Eisenhower?
    Don't think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the Suez Crisis the year before - mentioning both nations seems odd. maybe 'mend their relationship'
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • political, economic and ideological."[57] - move full stop outside
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the printers to destroy their type - wlink Letterpress printing ie, will younger readers know what 'type' means?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority - move its (UKAEA) up to first mention
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Minister in Washington, on 3 July - add , DC, per others
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • development and fabrication capability."[76] - move full stop out
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relationship for nearly 60 years."[79] - move full stop out
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • deputy chairman; Major General Herbert Loper; - rank already given
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and James W. McCrae - spelling? wlink (if same fellow) James W. McRae
    Heh. New article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. H. B. Macklen from the Ministry of Defence - is this Victor Harry Burton Macklen as listed eg on 1975 Birthday Honours and on John Challens, ref now here (author with Penney) and Britain's "Mr Nuclear" per here?
    That's him. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Green Grass warhead - move wlink up to first mention
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haillard x 5 - is that spelt Halliard (others, ie Burgee, Flagpole, Pennant, seem to have flag-themed names)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow the UK to "anglicise" the W28 nuclear - wlink anglicise
    Corrected. Did not link as article is about language. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • passed on without US permission."[89] - move full stop out
    MOS:LQUOTE: When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weapons for the RAF and British Army of the Rhine - RAF not yer wlinked
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the agreement 5.37 tonnes of UK-produced... - convert all these?
    In the imperial system, pounds are used for base metals, troy ounces for precious metals and kilograms for fissile metals. So no conversion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the UK produced plutonium - hyphen after UK?
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio - near (not in)
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2014 there are also two - still as of 2019?
    Probably, but the source is from 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2018, the most recent renewal - 2019?
    Changed to 2020. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessarily in Britain’s favour - straighten curly apostrophe
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones, Matthew - authorlink Matthew Jones (historian)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young, Ken - authorlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption UK Defence Minister Des Browne (right) addresses a reception hosted by US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (left) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement in Washington, DC, on 9 July 2008. - use 'Defence' spelling here before "Agreement"?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption President Dwight D. Eisenhower (second from right) and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (second from left) meet for talks in Bermuda in March 1957 to repair the rift created by the 1956 Suez Crisis. - left-most person is hardly visible, maybe change Macmillan to 'left foreground'?
    Looks clear to me, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption NNSA Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty and Stephen Lovegrove cut the ribbon on the U.S.-U.K. Mutual Defense Agreement 60th Anniversary commemorative exhibit - Defence?, and US–UK ie remove dots? Add year 2018? Full stop?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: Should I expect further comments from you? --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has not been active for a fortnight, and like myself may have suffered a climate-related disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • " the United States was far larger than Britain both militarily and economically" "was far larger" sounds a bit odd - as if the situation has changed. May be "was (and is) far larger"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Quadrant Conference in August 1943, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill and the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, signed the Quebec Agreement," Presumably also Mackenzie King as it also covered Canada, and you should say so.
    Mackenzie King did not sign it, only Churchill and Roosevelt. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its control of "restricted data" prevented the United States' allies from receiving any information on pain of death." This sounds odd. "on pain of death" must refer to one or more individuals passing the information, not threatening the allies receiving it as you imply. Also "any information" is far too vague and broad and needs clarification.
    Re-worded to: "Technical co-operation was ended by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act), which forbade passing "restricted data" to the United States' allies under pain of death." Here "any information" is replaced by "restricted data". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the 1956 presidential election approaching, Eisenhower was forced to back down." To back down how? To cancel the 1956 agreement?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British timing was good." What timing?
    Changed to "The successful development of British thermonuclear weapons came at an opportune time to renew negotiations with the United States." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" This implies that Warsi is still in office, but she was in 2012-14. Maybe "According to Baroness Warsi in [year], who was then the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs".
    How did you know that? Changed to: "In July 2014 Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2012 to 2014, stated that the government's position was" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • Support. Just one comment on this:
    • Is there any reason why Modus Vivendi is capitalised? It this the name of something specific? If so, then it should be delinked (or piped to somewhere else), as the link goes to the phrase, which should be in lower case

That's a minor point to deal with, so shouldn't stand in the way of supporting the excellent article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1958_US–UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement/archive1&oldid=937095259"