This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 10, 2018, and October 10, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any way to better organize that list of participating nations? Sherwelthlangley 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for the treaty are pretty well known but the article doesnt state whether the treaty met with much opposition in Western Countries (Edward Teller was one opponent) or what the arguments against the treaty were. 82.132.136.179 ( talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The significance of this airplane to this topic is notclear either here or on its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.92.126 ( talk) 07:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
be good to see much more on this. I understand that was the driving force for the ban. 74.60.161.158 ( talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus — JFG talk 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
– I am proposing simply to remove the word "Nuclear" from these titles.
The name "Partial 'Nuclear' Test Ban Treaty" is used just once in the main article, while "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is used in both the lead, infobox, and multiple times throughout the article. Similarly, on the "List of parties to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty", the lead refers to the "List of parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty" and "Partial Test Ban Treaty." Wikisource also uses "Partial Test Ban Treaty."
Outside Wikipedia, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" appears to be more common than "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Searching for the former on Google yields 81,500 results (28,000 on Google Books), while the latter yields 13,500 (8,170 on Google Books). Expert organizations also tend to use "Partial Test Ban Treaty": see the relevant pages at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, CTBTO Preparatory Commission, Atomic Heritage Foundation, and SIPRI. I am curious for others' thoughts, but this seems like a pretty clear opportunity to standardize things. GRKO3 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Icebob99 ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status.
Icebob99 (
talk)
15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This artice did not meet any of the immediate failure criteria. The copyvio detector did have a high chance of copyvio (56%), but I checked the top 10 likelihoods and none of them contained anything more than formal names or quoted text from people such as Kennedy. There are a few cleanup tags, including four citation needed tags, but that is hardly a large number and will not fail this article.
Going through the criteria one by one:
1. Well-written: The prose is good and I couldn't find any grammar errors. Lead section follows MoS, layout correct, no fiction or list incorporation (only possible list is in a "main article" note to the list of signatories. I looked closely at words to watch: there's no peacockery or weasel words, and instances like "key factor" are close to the edge, but all those instances are supported by inline citations, so I'll assume that the sources support the idea of a "key factor".
2. Verifiable: List of references in concordance with layout, all sources reliable (even the "better citation needed" tag is next to a source of adequate reliability), all quotes are referenced inline (I added an extra citation to a quote for which I didn't see any inline citation), no original research found since I'm assuming that the book references that I can't access contain all the information that they cited, no copyvios as described above.
3. Broad: at 80 kB readable prose, this article covers the topic and its progression throughout history thoroughly, and I could not find any unnecessary detail.
4. Neutrality: good. Addresses concerns of both Washington and the Kremlin, as well as other parties.
5. Stability: good, no edit war, only major changes are improvements.
6. Images: Images spread out fairly evenly, all use good licensing, relevant, good captions.
Since this article meets all of the GA criteria, I hereby pass this as a good article. Congratulations to the nominator. Icebob99 ( talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
First off, I should preface that I have seen this kind of prose and contradictory information before in articles on this subject, so I'm going to ask, very clearly that I'd like any revisions of my edits to be discussed thoroughly, and calmly on the talk page first.
I'll cover the mention of the televised debate first. The article stated "While Teller would largely win the contemporary televised debates of 1958", and refers to page 3 and 4 of the source, where the debate is summarised and it quotes Teller as saying; "This question of freedom is the most important question in my mind, I don’t want to kill anybody. I am passionately opposed to killing, but I’m even more passionately fond of freedom.", when pressed on the issue of fallout killing people. It then says that Teller promoted the idea that he had won the debate unilaterally. The very next section describes Teller's efforts as the State using a broad array of tactics to fight the anti-nuclear actions of elite US Scientists, implying that this had been a PR campaign on behalf of the state. Yet this article, as I found it, appeared more like an opinion piece, claiming that the scientists, from Teller, to Sagan, to Einstein had been discredited, in 'debates that they'd lost' (I'm paraphrasing). This is clearly the direct opposite of what pages 3 & 4 of the source material are saying, and it is concerning to see this kind of inaccuracy.
Next, the prose claims that "Many health scientists that were asked to sign were critical of Pauling's 'thoroughly unscientific' fallout assumptions, despite most wishing for a test-ban for other reasons, they could not bring themselves to sign a document that promoted such exaggerations of the dangers". Page 93 of the reference does not make that link at all. It cites three different scientists, who offered conditional support to Pauling, but it misattributes and mixes up those statements. For example; one of them predicts that "exaggeration of the dangers would cause the public to lose confidence in scientists in general." It does not, in any way state that he believed that it WAS an exaggeration. The author of this sentence also claims to have represented the views of most of these scientists, while only presenting a handful of different views and criticisms such as "Franck (who) made up his mind not to sign because he feared that the petition might weaken the U.S. government in its negotiations with the Soviets."-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 10, 2018, and October 10, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any way to better organize that list of participating nations? Sherwelthlangley 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for the treaty are pretty well known but the article doesnt state whether the treaty met with much opposition in Western Countries (Edward Teller was one opponent) or what the arguments against the treaty were. 82.132.136.179 ( talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The significance of this airplane to this topic is notclear either here or on its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.92.126 ( talk) 07:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
be good to see much more on this. I understand that was the driving force for the ban. 74.60.161.158 ( talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus — JFG talk 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
– I am proposing simply to remove the word "Nuclear" from these titles.
The name "Partial 'Nuclear' Test Ban Treaty" is used just once in the main article, while "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is used in both the lead, infobox, and multiple times throughout the article. Similarly, on the "List of parties to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty", the lead refers to the "List of parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty" and "Partial Test Ban Treaty." Wikisource also uses "Partial Test Ban Treaty."
Outside Wikipedia, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" appears to be more common than "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Searching for the former on Google yields 81,500 results (28,000 on Google Books), while the latter yields 13,500 (8,170 on Google Books). Expert organizations also tend to use "Partial Test Ban Treaty": see the relevant pages at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, CTBTO Preparatory Commission, Atomic Heritage Foundation, and SIPRI. I am curious for others' thoughts, but this seems like a pretty clear opportunity to standardize things. GRKO3 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Icebob99 ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status.
Icebob99 (
talk)
15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This artice did not meet any of the immediate failure criteria. The copyvio detector did have a high chance of copyvio (56%), but I checked the top 10 likelihoods and none of them contained anything more than formal names or quoted text from people such as Kennedy. There are a few cleanup tags, including four citation needed tags, but that is hardly a large number and will not fail this article.
Going through the criteria one by one:
1. Well-written: The prose is good and I couldn't find any grammar errors. Lead section follows MoS, layout correct, no fiction or list incorporation (only possible list is in a "main article" note to the list of signatories. I looked closely at words to watch: there's no peacockery or weasel words, and instances like "key factor" are close to the edge, but all those instances are supported by inline citations, so I'll assume that the sources support the idea of a "key factor".
2. Verifiable: List of references in concordance with layout, all sources reliable (even the "better citation needed" tag is next to a source of adequate reliability), all quotes are referenced inline (I added an extra citation to a quote for which I didn't see any inline citation), no original research found since I'm assuming that the book references that I can't access contain all the information that they cited, no copyvios as described above.
3. Broad: at 80 kB readable prose, this article covers the topic and its progression throughout history thoroughly, and I could not find any unnecessary detail.
4. Neutrality: good. Addresses concerns of both Washington and the Kremlin, as well as other parties.
5. Stability: good, no edit war, only major changes are improvements.
6. Images: Images spread out fairly evenly, all use good licensing, relevant, good captions.
Since this article meets all of the GA criteria, I hereby pass this as a good article. Congratulations to the nominator. Icebob99 ( talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
First off, I should preface that I have seen this kind of prose and contradictory information before in articles on this subject, so I'm going to ask, very clearly that I'd like any revisions of my edits to be discussed thoroughly, and calmly on the talk page first.
I'll cover the mention of the televised debate first. The article stated "While Teller would largely win the contemporary televised debates of 1958", and refers to page 3 and 4 of the source, where the debate is summarised and it quotes Teller as saying; "This question of freedom is the most important question in my mind, I don’t want to kill anybody. I am passionately opposed to killing, but I’m even more passionately fond of freedom.", when pressed on the issue of fallout killing people. It then says that Teller promoted the idea that he had won the debate unilaterally. The very next section describes Teller's efforts as the State using a broad array of tactics to fight the anti-nuclear actions of elite US Scientists, implying that this had been a PR campaign on behalf of the state. Yet this article, as I found it, appeared more like an opinion piece, claiming that the scientists, from Teller, to Sagan, to Einstein had been discredited, in 'debates that they'd lost' (I'm paraphrasing). This is clearly the direct opposite of what pages 3 & 4 of the source material are saying, and it is concerning to see this kind of inaccuracy.
Next, the prose claims that "Many health scientists that were asked to sign were critical of Pauling's 'thoroughly unscientific' fallout assumptions, despite most wishing for a test-ban for other reasons, they could not bring themselves to sign a document that promoted such exaggerations of the dangers". Page 93 of the reference does not make that link at all. It cites three different scientists, who offered conditional support to Pauling, but it misattributes and mixes up those statements. For example; one of them predicts that "exaggeration of the dangers would cause the public to lose confidence in scientists in general." It does not, in any way state that he believed that it WAS an exaggeration. The author of this sentence also claims to have represented the views of most of these scientists, while only presenting a handful of different views and criticisms such as "Franck (who) made up his mind not to sign because he feared that the petition might weaken the U.S. government in its negotiations with the Soviets."-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)