Project Emily is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	Project Emily has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.
	Project Emily is part of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2017 Good article nominee Listed December 7, 2017 WikiProject A-class review Approved June 26, 2019 Good topic candidate Promoted April 29, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on September 16, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that British crews launched Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles (example pictured) from Vandenberg Air Force Base as part of Project Emily? Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cold War Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Rocketry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / North America / United States / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Project Emily/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

• suggest a comma ahead of "to take on IRBM development"

   Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• I think sputnik crisis should be Sputnik crisis, as Sputnik is a proper noun

   Done I just thought it was the Russian word for satellite. (спутник) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• link Third Air Force

   Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• "In July, it was decided that each of the locations would be designated as a squadron, with three missiles." this isn't clear, only three missiles per squadron, I thought it was three per flight? How do we get to 60 then? Also what were the "locations" mentioned?

  Y Re-worded to "This was conceived as a four-squadron deployment, with each squadron controlling fifteen missiles in five flights of three missiles, with each flight at a separate location." Later: In July, it was decided that each of the locations would be designated as a squadron instead of a flight, but still with three missiles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• The second para of the Deployment section doesn't flow really well. When I read it, I thought "Where do the twenty squadrons come from?" Are they all missile ones? That sentence seems out of place, surely it should be at the end of the para, summarising? Might be worth stating explicitly up front that the squadrons were allocated to two Groups, No. 1 and No. 3. The rest seems ok.

   Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  The twenty squadrons sentence still needs to go at the end of the para. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

   Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• consistency with the numero signs. Some are No. and others are Nos without the full stop

  Y Decided to put the dots in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• is "missile serving chief" a thing? Or is it "service" or "servicing"?

  It's "missile serving chief" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• the map is incredibly busy, I suggest limiting it to the main bases, we know the satellites will be in a group around each one.

  I think it's important to have them all. As you can see from the map, the satellites are not that regular. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• "IWST launches were to demonstrate proficiency" should that be CTL? Also it is a bit repetitive, they were to demonstrate proficiency AND to demonstrate efficiency? Seems closely parsed.

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• per MOS:COMPASS there shouldn't be a cap on "Western nuclear deterrent".

  Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• The term is also unfamiliar and a bit ambiguous, does that mean the nuclear deterrent based to the west of the Soviet Union? Perhaps expand slightly?

  Yeah. Just as you won't hear the term "North America" outside Canada, so "western nuclear deterrent" will only be used in the UK. Linked "western" to "First World"

• the images all look good.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hope this addresses all your concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply