- 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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 [1].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
My first reaction is that it isn't there yet.
- We mention the opposition from Labour (although the misquote is grammatically wrong); did the SNP and CND object to the Polaris programme? They did, but it isn't mentioned. Some sources
here
- I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
-
SNP had 11 MPs in 1974, elected on a platform of opposing all nuclear weapons.
CND were very influential throughout the period of Polaris's deployment, with a dip, as you say, in the 1960s. See
this Telegraph link.
Here's a bunch of Pathe reports. Anti-nuclear protesters
breached security and boarded Repulse in 1988.
Thatcher was furious.
Faslane Peace Camp was started in the Polaris era. I really think some of that needs to be mentioned in the interest of balance. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. When was the Faslane Peace Camp established? Its article doesn't say. The SNP article says it had no MPs before 1970. It cites a source that says that the SNP adopted a motion opposing nuclear weapons in 1963 in response to the US Polaris, which would be worth adding to the article, but it's cited to James Mitchell (1996), Strategies for Self-government: The Campaigns for a Scottish Parliament, a book which the library here unfortunately lost in the 2018 flood. I'll have a look and see if what I can find.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Faslane Peace Camp was established in 1982. I've found some material on opposition to the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch. The whole nuclear disarmament movement faltered with the test bans in the early 1960s.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article.
No, if this article describes the Polaris system, it should cover it over its entire lifespan, 1969-1996. Opposition to Polaris was significant, especially in Scotland and among Labour people in the 1970s and 1980s. I don't see an argument against including it. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 07:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)- Labour is already covered. Added a new "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Faslane Peace Camp was established in 1982. I've found some material on opposition to the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch. The whole nuclear disarmament movement faltered with the test bans in the early 1960s.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. When was the Faslane Peace Camp established? Its article doesn't say. The SNP article says it had no MPs before 1970. It cites a source that says that the SNP adopted a motion opposing nuclear weapons in 1963 in response to the US Polaris, which would be worth adding to the article, but it's cited to James Mitchell (1996), Strategies for Self-government: The Campaigns for a Scottish Parliament, a book which the library here unfortunately lost in the 2018 flood. I'll have a look and see if what I can find.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
-
SNP had 11 MPs in 1974, elected on a platform of opposing all nuclear weapons.
CND were very influential throughout the period of Polaris's deployment, with a dip, as you say, in the 1960s. See
this Telegraph link.
Here's a bunch of Pathe reports. Anti-nuclear protesters
breached security and boarded Repulse in 1988.
Thatcher was furious.
Faslane Peace Camp was started in the Polaris era. I really think some of that needs to be mentioned in the interest of balance. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
- There are five instances of "some" in front of numbers. Exact numbers should be exact (Some 38 test firings were carried out -> Thirty-eight test firings were carried out) and approximate ones should be approximate (some 4,500 staff -> 4,500 staff)
- Cut back to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- How did Britain start off ordering Trident I C-4 and end up with the more capable Trident II D-5? I know, presumably you know, but the reader of this article as it stands doesn't know.
- Well of course I know; I wrote the article on Trident. There is a long description of the negotiation process there. Added: "When the US government resolved to upgrade to the new Trident II D-5, the UK government, with the experience of Chevaline in mind, decided to purchase Trident II instead." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why include the long verbatim extract from John Major's speech? Major came to power just as the programme was ending.
- Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's ok but it's too long a verbatim quote even if it was from the inventor of the device. If we quote Major at this length, would we need a balancing quote from
Bruce Kent? Better not to do this, especially if it implies that all British people supported it. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The majority did support it, and even more bought into the notion that Britain was an important country.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're right.
This book suggests about a third in the UK opposed it in the 1980s.
This one points out the obvious, that Scottish people have always been more opposed to it than the rest of the UK. Throughout the 1980s, Scottish politics was dominated by Labour, which was unilateralist at the time. Since 2007 Scotland is SNP, which is unilateralist, and it's likely that
most Scottish people now
oppose nuclear weapons being based there. Polaris was a big part of this journey. All the same, whether it's a half or a third, the article should reflect this in its coverage of the topic. At the moment we have close to zero coverage of the opposition to Polaris, which was significant, both in numbers and in the continuing impact on the Scottish and UK political scene. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Added an "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're right.
This book suggests about a third in the UK opposed it in the 1980s.
This one points out the obvious, that Scottish people have always been more opposed to it than the rest of the UK. Throughout the 1980s, Scottish politics was dominated by Labour, which was unilateralist at the time. Since 2007 Scotland is SNP, which is unilateralist, and it's likely that
most Scottish people now
oppose nuclear weapons being based there. Polaris was a big part of this journey. All the same, whether it's a half or a third, the article should reflect this in its coverage of the topic. At the moment we have close to zero coverage of the opposition to Polaris, which was significant, both in numbers and in the continuing impact on the Scottish and UK political scene. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- The majority did support it, and even more bought into the notion that Britain was an important country.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's ok but it's too long a verbatim quote even if it was from the inventor of the device. If we quote Major at this length, would we need a balancing quote from
Bruce Kent? Better not to do this, especially if it implies that all British people supported it. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- The final paragraph contains language like "Polaris accounted for just 1.5 per cent..." and "Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged".
This source has broadly similar costings but points out that the Chevaline programme added a billion to the cost. To mention Chevaline's cost earlier but to miss it out here looks slightly partial.
- added: "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't mention the missile gap without pointing out that it was fictional.
-
Tritium is not a fissile material.
- It hadn't occurred to me that might be inferred. Changed to "active materials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why capitalise (for example) Improved Front End? Why show the abbreviation (IFE) twice but then never actually use it?
- Because another editor did not realise that "front end" is a technical term. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
-- MarchOrDie ( talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Much appreciated.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all. Thank you for the improvements you have made in response to my comments. Pending the other points being addressed I oppose on 1b and 1d. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
11:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Hawkeye,
MOD, it looks to have been several weeks since the last exchange here -- are we any closer to resolution? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I attempted to address the concerns with the Opposition section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Hawkeye,
MOD, it looks to have been several weeks since the last exchange here -- are we any closer to resolution? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all. Thank you for the improvements you have made in response to my comments. Pending the other points being addressed I oppose on 1b and 1d. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
11:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is in fine shape. A few minor quibbles from me:
- suggest the current wording/punctuation in this sentence is clunky, and suggest "of the Blackburn Buccaneer,[12] and the need for a small warhead led to the development of the Red Beard aerial bomb."
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think it should be Sputnik rather than sputnik, as it is a proper name
- I'm used to it in Russian, where cпутник is not. Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- you can probably drop the definite article here "if it could acquire
theSkybolt." - I think you could add a sentence fragment explaining what the MLF concept was. And use MLF thereafter.
- Don't want to get too deep into it, (it has its own article, and books have been written on the subject) but added: "an American concept under which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) nuclear weapons would remain in US custody, thereby heading off nuclear proliferation within NATO, but all NATO nations would have a finger on the nuclear trigger through multinational crewing of the ships carrying the nuclear missiles."
- perhaps NATO in full at first mention?
- Done. Although I think its one of those abbreviations like ATM where the abbreviation is better known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "dependence on the United States"
- "the MLF concept began fading away"
down to Design... more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "The number of missiles required was based on substituting for Skybolt" does this mean that the same number of Polaris missiles were to be deployed as Skybolt missiles that were planned? Perhaps it could be better expressed?
- "The number of missiles required was the same as the number of Skybolt missiles, which were considered sufficient to devastate forty cities." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve
thisthe number of submarines"
- suggest "With
aits range extendedofto 2,500 nautical miles" - suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve
thisthe number of submarines"::Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC) - perhaps say when it is first mentioned, that HMS Valiant was a nuclear-powered hunter-killer sub?
- "and decided to adopt Le Fanu's proposal that a special organisation be created to manage the project
was adopted"
- perhaps link cadre (military)?
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "the
Mministers" - link keel laying for "laid down" at first mention
- when it talks about the scope of the Polaris Sales Agreement being open-ended or limited, from different UK/US perspectives, is this meant in terms of timeframe or other aspects?
- Information.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you add that then? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Information.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- link ship commissioning for "commissioned" at first mention
- clearance in the
Cchannel- De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "complete the hunter-killer Valiant
;in 1966, and Warspite the following year." - link refit
- if the 3rd Submarine Squadron was/is the hunter-killer one, perhaps state that when first mentioned?
- It wasn't. The 3rd Submarine Squadron operated conventional submarines.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps mention that then? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't. The 3rd Submarine Squadron operated conventional submarines.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think SACEUR should be in full
- suggest "formally
informedadvised his RAF counterpart" it's currently a bit form-ish- Sounds like the Royal Navy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- this isn't clear "The Americans used a material known as 3DPO, a phenolic thermosetting material infused with quartz fibres, in the heat shield, which also acted as a defence against irradiation.[165] The new warhead was designated the A-3TK, the old one being the A-3T." Does the former mean that the UK used the same material as the US to shield the warheads? If so, I would state that. Also, was the heat shield on the IFE as a whole or on the individual warheads?
- Yes. Added. The warheads. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "In 1972 Chevaline was estimated to cost £235 million."
- suggest "Its main technical problem was the increase in weight of the PAC over the third warhead..." if that is what is meant?
- I don't understand you. The increase in weight of the PAC resulted in a decrease in range of the missile.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the PAC replaced the third warhead, as I understand it? So, was it heavier than the third warhead or lighter? If lighter, why the reduction in range? If heavier, that explains the reduction in range. Maybe I'm being thick here...
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Text has been re-worded accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the PAC replaced the third warhead, as I understand it? So, was it heavier than the third warhead or lighter? If lighter, why the reduction in range? If heavier, that explains the reduction in range. Maybe I'm being thick here...
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. The increase in weight of the PAC resulted in a decrease in range of the missile.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- "and Repulse in 1987."
- "One hundred warheads were produced" are these PACs or A-3TKs or both?
- The A-3TK was the warhead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- what is the relevance of "£240 million in April 1972"? I couldn't find a reference to that figure earlier, perhaps I've missed it?
- Changed to "£235 million" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Great to see the Opposition section. Polaris (and Trident) have been significant socially and politically in the UK
- US cruise missiles
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's me done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Images appropriately licensed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Be consistent about using title case
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The bibliographic info for Suzanne Doyle's article needs to be updated
- Reverted bot edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cite 133 should have an access date.
- Not required for an archive URL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The link for cite 196 goes to Major's general website. Should link to the speech and the access date needs to be updated.
- Repaired link rot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Be consistent in your date format in the cites. #176 doesn't match the rest and there may be others.
- Template. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Access date for #137 should be updated.
- Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the multiple-author references to match the citation style.
- Looks okay to me. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The sources used are high-quality ones published by reputable journals and publishers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) ended technical cooperation.[2] It feared resurgence of United States isolationism". This appears to say that the Act feared resurgence.
- Resolved, at the expense of making the text more awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- " By 1959, however, serious concerns had been raised about its own vulnerability, as it was liquid-fuelled and deployed above ground, and therefore extremely vulnerable to a pre-emptive nuclear strike." This seems to imply that Blue Streak was brought into service.
- Added that it had not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "research at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) at Harwell was directed towards development of a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor which January 1952 studies showed was too large for use by the Royal Navy, and not into a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) of the kind that the US Navy had under development, as this was seen as having no civil application." What was seen by whom?
- Added that it was the UKAEA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Submarine propulsion research was suspended in October 1952 so they did not interfere with plutonium production for nuclear weapons" What does "they" refer to?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "The US policy of attempting to force Britain into their MLF proved to be a failure in light of this decision" You say above that this attempt had already been abandoned.
- No, it soldiered on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "in favor". This should be British spelling.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "It included the Vice Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Sir Varyl Begg; the Deputy Secretary of the Admiralty, James Mackay; Rear Admiral Hugh Mackenzie; and physicist Sir Robert Cockburn and F. J. Doggett from the Ministry of Aviation." I would delete the "and" before "physicist".
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Resolution-class. Is it necessary to hyphenate when used as an adjective and not as a noun? This makes it difficult to check use of the term with Ctrl-F. So far as I can see this crucial term is not explained. It is first mentioned (apart from in the lead) unlinked in the Organisation section. In the construction section it is linked in the main article template but not mentioned in the text.
- That's what the MOS says. ) MOS:HYPHEN) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I should have made clear that my main point is that the term Resolution-class is not explained.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the type of submarine used for Polaris needs more than a link and "Main article: Resolution-class submarine"
- There a great deal of detail about their design and construction. What more do you think should be included? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a great deal of detail but you do not spell out what detail relates specifically to Resolution-class. The term is not mentioned in the 'Construction' section even though you refer the reader to
Resolution-class submarine as the main article on this section.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removed the early reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a great deal of detail but you do not spell out what detail relates specifically to Resolution-class. The term is not mentioned in the 'Construction' section even though you refer the reader to
Resolution-class submarine as the main article on this section.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the type of submarine used for Polaris needs more than a link and "Main article: Resolution-class submarine"
- I should have made clear that my main point is that the term Resolution-class is not explained.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Peter la Niece. I think the "l" is usually capitalised.
- Captained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Concerns about the Walney Channel proved justified; the launch was delayed by half an hour due to a protest by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, leaving insufficient clearance, and the boat became stuck in the mud." This appears a non-sequitur - due to decline in tide level?
- Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "not being as well built as those built by Vickers" Repetition of "built". Perhaps "not being as well built as those constructed by Vickers"
- Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "One important matter that SPO raised was that A-3 production would in due course be closed down, and the missile replaced by a new model under development then known as the B3, which eventually became the Poseidon. Thus, a final decision on the number of missiles and spare parts would ultimately be required.[121] This gravely concerned the British government. "True to form", commented Patrick Gordon Walker, "we either buy weapons which don’t exist or buy those destined for the junkyard of Steptoe & Son." I do not follow this. Presumably a final decision would always be required whatever was proposed so what made this of such particular concern? Also what is the relevance of Walker's comment? All weapons don't exist when they are proposed and Poseidon was not scrapped.
- The whole issue is that buying weapons systems is much cheaper than developing them, but you lose control. If the supplier abandons the system, then you either have to follow suit or pay the cost of maintaining it yourself. Walker posits the two extremes (a common rhetorical tactic). The fear was that Polaris would be scrapped when the USN upgraded to Poseidon.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to explain this in the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. He appears to say that we either buy weapons which don’t exist (Poseidon} or weapons which are destined for the junkyard (Polaris}. As these were the only choices, what was there to be sarcastic about?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the way that political debate is conducted in the UK. There was a clear preference for an unrealistic non-existent solution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. He appears to say that we either buy weapons which don’t exist (Poseidon} or weapons which are destined for the junkyard (Polaris}. As these were the only choices, what was there to be sarcastic about?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to explain this in the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The whole issue is that buying weapons systems is much cheaper than developing them, but you lose control. If the supplier abandons the system, then you either have to follow suit or pay the cost of maintaining it yourself. Walker posits the two extremes (a common rhetorical tactic). The fear was that Polaris would be scrapped when the USN upgraded to Poseidon.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well it may be my fault but I do not understand what you are saying so I will terminate this review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "This was authorised by Wilson on 28 November 1963." Wilson did not come to office until 1964.
- It was Douglas-Home. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." I think that figures including Chevaline would be more realistic.
- Both figures are provided. The comparisoon is fair, as Chevaline was not foreseen in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: With one support and one oppose after this has been open for 2 months, I am inclined to archive this. As Dudley Miles is in the middle of a review, we can maybe spare a day or two more to see if we get somewhere, but without an obvious consensus very soon, this will have to be archived. Sarastro ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added two replies and will try to comment on the rest of the article tomorrow. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a good article and in my view close to FA. I have only added two more comments but there are still two queries from my earlier review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing comment: I think it's time to archive this now. Even if Dudley supported, we still wouldn't have a consensus and are unlikely to get one within the time frame of this FAC. I will be archiving this shortly. As usual, it can be renominated after the two-week cooling off period. Sarastro ( talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{ featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 [1].
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
My first reaction is that it isn't there yet.
- We mention the opposition from Labour (although the misquote is grammatically wrong); did the SNP and CND object to the Polaris programme? They did, but it isn't mentioned. Some sources
here
- I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
-
SNP had 11 MPs in 1974, elected on a platform of opposing all nuclear weapons.
CND were very influential throughout the period of Polaris's deployment, with a dip, as you say, in the 1960s. See
this Telegraph link.
Here's a bunch of Pathe reports. Anti-nuclear protesters
breached security and boarded Repulse in 1988.
Thatcher was furious.
Faslane Peace Camp was started in the Polaris era. I really think some of that needs to be mentioned in the interest of balance. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. When was the Faslane Peace Camp established? Its article doesn't say. The SNP article says it had no MPs before 1970. It cites a source that says that the SNP adopted a motion opposing nuclear weapons in 1963 in response to the US Polaris, which would be worth adding to the article, but it's cited to James Mitchell (1996), Strategies for Self-government: The Campaigns for a Scottish Parliament, a book which the library here unfortunately lost in the 2018 flood. I'll have a look and see if what I can find.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Faslane Peace Camp was established in 1982. I've found some material on opposition to the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch. The whole nuclear disarmament movement faltered with the test bans in the early 1960s.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article.
No, if this article describes the Polaris system, it should cover it over its entire lifespan, 1969-1996. Opposition to Polaris was significant, especially in Scotland and among Labour people in the 1970s and 1980s. I don't see an argument against including it. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 07:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)- Labour is already covered. Added a new "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Faslane Peace Camp was established in 1982. I've found some material on opposition to the American Polaris submarines at Holy Loch. The whole nuclear disarmament movement faltered with the test bans in the early 1960s.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
04:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- We're looking for material about the 1960s. The 1980s takes takes us into the Trident article. When was the Faslane Peace Camp established? Its article doesn't say. The SNP article says it had no MPs before 1970. It cites a source that says that the SNP adopted a motion opposing nuclear weapons in 1963 in response to the US Polaris, which would be worth adding to the article, but it's cited to James Mitchell (1996), Strategies for Self-government: The Campaigns for a Scottish Parliament, a book which the library here unfortunately lost in the 2018 flood. I'll have a look and see if what I can find.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
-
SNP had 11 MPs in 1974, elected on a platform of opposing all nuclear weapons.
CND were very influential throughout the period of Polaris's deployment, with a dip, as you say, in the 1960s. See
this Telegraph link.
Here's a bunch of Pathe reports. Anti-nuclear protesters
breached security and boarded Repulse in 1988.
Thatcher was furious.
Faslane Peace Camp was started in the Polaris era. I really think some of that needs to be mentioned in the interest of balance. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
- There are five instances of "some" in front of numbers. Exact numbers should be exact (Some 38 test firings were carried out -> Thirty-eight test firings were carried out) and approximate ones should be approximate (some 4,500 staff -> 4,500 staff)
- Cut back to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- How did Britain start off ordering Trident I C-4 and end up with the more capable Trident II D-5? I know, presumably you know, but the reader of this article as it stands doesn't know.
- Well of course I know; I wrote the article on Trident. There is a long description of the negotiation process there. Added: "When the US government resolved to upgrade to the new Trident II D-5, the UK government, with the experience of Chevaline in mind, decided to purchase Trident II instead." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why include the long verbatim extract from John Major's speech? Major came to power just as the programme was ending.
- Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's ok but it's too long a verbatim quote even if it was from the inventor of the device. If we quote Major at this length, would we need a balancing quote from
Bruce Kent? Better not to do this, especially if it implies that all British people supported it. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The majority did support it, and even more bought into the notion that Britain was an important country.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're right.
This book suggests about a third in the UK opposed it in the 1980s.
This one points out the obvious, that Scottish people have always been more opposed to it than the rest of the UK. Throughout the 1980s, Scottish politics was dominated by Labour, which was unilateralist at the time. Since 2007 Scotland is SNP, which is unilateralist, and it's likely that
most Scottish people now
oppose nuclear weapons being based there. Polaris was a big part of this journey. All the same, whether it's a half or a third, the article should reflect this in its coverage of the topic. At the moment we have close to zero coverage of the opposition to Polaris, which was significant, both in numbers and in the continuing impact on the Scottish and UK political scene. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Added an "Opposition" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're right.
This book suggests about a third in the UK opposed it in the 1980s.
This one points out the obvious, that Scottish people have always been more opposed to it than the rest of the UK. Throughout the 1980s, Scottish politics was dominated by Labour, which was unilateralist at the time. Since 2007 Scotland is SNP, which is unilateralist, and it's likely that
most Scottish people now
oppose nuclear weapons being based there. Polaris was a big part of this journey. All the same, whether it's a half or a third, the article should reflect this in its coverage of the topic. At the moment we have close to zero coverage of the opposition to Polaris, which was significant, both in numbers and in the continuing impact on the Scottish and UK political scene. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- The majority did support it, and even more bought into the notion that Britain was an important country.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
00:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's ok but it's too long a verbatim quote even if it was from the inventor of the device. If we quote Major at this length, would we need a balancing quote from
Bruce Kent? Better not to do this, especially if it implies that all British people supported it. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- The final paragraph contains language like "Polaris accounted for just 1.5 per cent..." and "Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged".
This source has broadly similar costings but points out that the Chevaline programme added a billion to the cost. To mention Chevaline's cost earlier but to miss it out here looks slightly partial.
- added: "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't mention the missile gap without pointing out that it was fictional.
-
Tritium is not a fissile material.
- It hadn't occurred to me that might be inferred. Changed to "active materials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why capitalise (for example) Improved Front End? Why show the abbreviation (IFE) twice but then never actually use it?
- Because another editor did not realise that "front end" is a technical term. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
-- MarchOrDie ( talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Much appreciated.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all. Thank you for the improvements you have made in response to my comments. Pending the other points being addressed I oppose on 1b and 1d. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
11:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
-
Hawkeye,
MOD, it looks to have been several weeks since the last exchange here -- are we any closer to resolution? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I attempted to address the concerns with the Opposition section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
-
Hawkeye,
MOD, it looks to have been several weeks since the last exchange here -- are we any closer to resolution? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all. Thank you for the improvements you have made in response to my comments. Pending the other points being addressed I oppose on 1b and 1d. --
MarchOrDie (
talk)
11:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is in fine shape. A few minor quibbles from me:
- suggest the current wording/punctuation in this sentence is clunky, and suggest "of the Blackburn Buccaneer,[12] and the need for a small warhead led to the development of the Red Beard aerial bomb."
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think it should be Sputnik rather than sputnik, as it is a proper name
- I'm used to it in Russian, where cпутник is not. Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- you can probably drop the definite article here "if it could acquire
theSkybolt." - I think you could add a sentence fragment explaining what the MLF concept was. And use MLF thereafter.
- Don't want to get too deep into it, (it has its own article, and books have been written on the subject) but added: "an American concept under which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) nuclear weapons would remain in US custody, thereby heading off nuclear proliferation within NATO, but all NATO nations would have a finger on the nuclear trigger through multinational crewing of the ships carrying the nuclear missiles."
- perhaps NATO in full at first mention?
- Done. Although I think its one of those abbreviations like ATM where the abbreviation is better known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "dependence on the United States"
- "the MLF concept began fading away"
down to Design... more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "The number of missiles required was based on substituting for Skybolt" does this mean that the same number of Polaris missiles were to be deployed as Skybolt missiles that were planned? Perhaps it could be better expressed?
- "The number of missiles required was the same as the number of Skybolt missiles, which were considered sufficient to devastate forty cities." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve
thisthe number of submarines"
- suggest "With
aits range extendedofto 2,500 nautical miles" - suggest "It was subsequently decided to halve
thisthe number of submarines"::Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC) - perhaps say when it is first mentioned, that HMS Valiant was a nuclear-powered hunter-killer sub?
- "and decided to adopt Le Fanu's proposal that a special organisation be created to manage the project
was adopted"
- perhaps link cadre (military)?
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- "the
Mministers" - link keel laying for "laid down" at first mention
- when it talks about the scope of the Polaris Sales Agreement being open-ended or limited, from different UK/US perspectives, is this meant in terms of timeframe or other aspects?
- Information.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you add that then? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Information.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- link ship commissioning for "commissioned" at first mention
- clearance in the
Cchannel- De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "complete the hunter-killer Valiant
;in 1966, and Warspite the following year." - link refit
- if the 3rd Submarine Squadron was/is the hunter-killer one, perhaps state that when first mentioned?
- It wasn't. The 3rd Submarine Squadron operated conventional submarines.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps mention that then? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't. The 3rd Submarine Squadron operated conventional submarines.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think SACEUR should be in full
- suggest "formally
informedadvised his RAF counterpart" it's currently a bit form-ish- Sounds like the Royal Navy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- this isn't clear "The Americans used a material known as 3DPO, a phenolic thermosetting material infused with quartz fibres, in the heat shield, which also acted as a defence against irradiation.[165] The new warhead was designated the A-3TK, the old one being the A-3T." Does the former mean that the UK used the same material as the US to shield the warheads? If so, I would state that. Also, was the heat shield on the IFE as a whole or on the individual warheads?
- Yes. Added. The warheads. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- suggest "In 1972 Chevaline was estimated to cost £235 million."
- suggest "Its main technical problem was the increase in weight of the PAC over the third warhead..." if that is what is meant?
- I don't understand you. The increase in weight of the PAC resulted in a decrease in range of the missile.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the PAC replaced the third warhead, as I understand it? So, was it heavier than the third warhead or lighter? If lighter, why the reduction in range? If heavier, that explains the reduction in range. Maybe I'm being thick here...
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Text has been re-worded accordingly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the PAC replaced the third warhead, as I understand it? So, was it heavier than the third warhead or lighter? If lighter, why the reduction in range? If heavier, that explains the reduction in range. Maybe I'm being thick here...
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. The increase in weight of the PAC resulted in a decrease in range of the missile.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- "and Repulse in 1987."
- "One hundred warheads were produced" are these PACs or A-3TKs or both?
- The A-3TK was the warhead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- what is the relevance of "£240 million in April 1972"? I couldn't find a reference to that figure earlier, perhaps I've missed it?
- Changed to "£235 million" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Great to see the Opposition section. Polaris (and Trident) have been significant socially and politically in the UK
- US cruise missiles
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's me done. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Images appropriately licensed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Be consistent about using title case
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The bibliographic info for Suzanne Doyle's article needs to be updated
- Reverted bot edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cite 133 should have an access date.
- Not required for an archive URL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The link for cite 196 goes to Major's general website. Should link to the speech and the access date needs to be updated.
- Repaired link rot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Be consistent in your date format in the cites. #176 doesn't match the rest and there may be others.
- Template. Fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Access date for #137 should be updated.
- Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the multiple-author references to match the citation style.
- Looks okay to me. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- The sources used are high-quality ones published by reputable journals and publishers.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) ended technical cooperation.[2] It feared resurgence of United States isolationism". This appears to say that the Act feared resurgence.
- Resolved, at the expense of making the text more awkward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- " By 1959, however, serious concerns had been raised about its own vulnerability, as it was liquid-fuelled and deployed above ground, and therefore extremely vulnerable to a pre-emptive nuclear strike." This seems to imply that Blue Streak was brought into service.
- Added that it had not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "research at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) at Harwell was directed towards development of a gas-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor which January 1952 studies showed was too large for use by the Royal Navy, and not into a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) of the kind that the US Navy had under development, as this was seen as having no civil application." What was seen by whom?
- Added that it was the UKAEA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Submarine propulsion research was suspended in October 1952 so they did not interfere with plutonium production for nuclear weapons" What does "they" refer to?
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "The US policy of attempting to force Britain into their MLF proved to be a failure in light of this decision" You say above that this attempt had already been abandoned.
- No, it soldiered on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "in favor". This should be British spelling.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "It included the Vice Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Sir Varyl Begg; the Deputy Secretary of the Admiralty, James Mackay; Rear Admiral Hugh Mackenzie; and physicist Sir Robert Cockburn and F. J. Doggett from the Ministry of Aviation." I would delete the "and" before "physicist".
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Resolution-class. Is it necessary to hyphenate when used as an adjective and not as a noun? This makes it difficult to check use of the term with Ctrl-F. So far as I can see this crucial term is not explained. It is first mentioned (apart from in the lead) unlinked in the Organisation section. In the construction section it is linked in the main article template but not mentioned in the text.
- That's what the MOS says. ) MOS:HYPHEN) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I should have made clear that my main point is that the term Resolution-class is not explained.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the type of submarine used for Polaris needs more than a link and "Main article: Resolution-class submarine"
- There a great deal of detail about their design and construction. What more do you think should be included? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a great deal of detail but you do not spell out what detail relates specifically to Resolution-class. The term is not mentioned in the 'Construction' section even though you refer the reader to
Resolution-class submarine as the main article on this section.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removed the early reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a great deal of detail but you do not spell out what detail relates specifically to Resolution-class. The term is not mentioned in the 'Construction' section even though you refer the reader to
Resolution-class submarine as the main article on this section.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the type of submarine used for Polaris needs more than a link and "Main article: Resolution-class submarine"
- I should have made clear that my main point is that the term Resolution-class is not explained.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Peter la Niece. I think the "l" is usually capitalised.
- Captained. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Concerns about the Walney Channel proved justified; the launch was delayed by half an hour due to a protest by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, leaving insufficient clearance, and the boat became stuck in the mud." This appears a non-sequitur - due to decline in tide level?
- Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "not being as well built as those built by Vickers" Repetition of "built". Perhaps "not being as well built as those constructed by Vickers"
- Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "One important matter that SPO raised was that A-3 production would in due course be closed down, and the missile replaced by a new model under development then known as the B3, which eventually became the Poseidon. Thus, a final decision on the number of missiles and spare parts would ultimately be required.[121] This gravely concerned the British government. "True to form", commented Patrick Gordon Walker, "we either buy weapons which don’t exist or buy those destined for the junkyard of Steptoe & Son." I do not follow this. Presumably a final decision would always be required whatever was proposed so what made this of such particular concern? Also what is the relevance of Walker's comment? All weapons don't exist when they are proposed and Poseidon was not scrapped.
- The whole issue is that buying weapons systems is much cheaper than developing them, but you lose control. If the supplier abandons the system, then you either have to follow suit or pay the cost of maintaining it yourself. Walker posits the two extremes (a common rhetorical tactic). The fear was that Polaris would be scrapped when the USN upgraded to Poseidon.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to explain this in the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. He appears to say that we either buy weapons which don’t exist (Poseidon} or weapons which are destined for the junkyard (Polaris}. As these were the only choices, what was there to be sarcastic about?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is not the way that political debate is conducted in the UK. There was a clear preference for an unrealistic non-existent solution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. He appears to say that we either buy weapons which don’t exist (Poseidon} or weapons which are destined for the junkyard (Polaris}. As these were the only choices, what was there to be sarcastic about?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to explain this in the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The whole issue is that buying weapons systems is much cheaper than developing them, but you lose control. If the supplier abandons the system, then you either have to follow suit or pay the cost of maintaining it yourself. Walker posits the two extremes (a common rhetorical tactic). The fear was that Polaris would be scrapped when the USN upgraded to Poseidon.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well it may be my fault but I do not understand what you are saying so I will terminate this review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles ( talk) 20:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- "This was authorised by Wilson on 28 November 1963." Wilson did not come to office until 1964.
- It was Douglas-Home. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." I think that figures including Chevaline would be more realistic.
- Both figures are provided. The comparisoon is fair, as Chevaline was not foreseen in 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: With one support and one oppose after this has been open for 2 months, I am inclined to archive this. As Dudley Miles is in the middle of a review, we can maybe spare a day or two more to see if we get somewhere, but without an obvious consensus very soon, this will have to be archived. Sarastro ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have added two replies and will try to comment on the rest of the article tomorrow. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a good article and in my view close to FA. I have only added two more comments but there are still two queries from my earlier review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Closing comment: I think it's time to archive this now. Even if Dudley supported, we still wouldn't have a consensus and are unlikely to get one within the time frame of this FAC. I will be archiving this shortly. As usual, it can be renominated after the two-week cooling off period. Sarastro ( talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{ featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro ( talk) 22:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.