Talk:Polaris (UK nuclear programme)
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polaris (UK nuclear programme) 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 |
Polaris (UK nuclear programme) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Polaris (UK nuclear programme) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 13 February 2018[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
UK Polaris programme → Polaris (UK nuclear programme) – To match Trident (UK nuclear programme). I don't like this name at all, but I want the two to match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support – I agree that the names should match. Further both names should include UK. Oculi (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, but the pages should probably be at "Polaris (nuclear programme)" and "Trident (nuclear programme)". "UK" is unnecessary disambiguation for both pages. There's no other nuclear programmes with either of those names. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Polaris (UK nuclear programme)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 00:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- It would be of interest to mention in the lead what exactly is the different between a regular and "hardened" warhead.
- "the UK developed an improved front-end" - can you find a better choice of words than front-end? Would 'nose cone' be appropriate or is that not entirely the same thing?
- "that Polaris was as yet unproven, that Polaris would be expensive," - I'd simplify to "that Polaris was as yet untested and would be expensive"
- I'd introduce the Skybolt to the reader as an 'air-launched ballistic missile'
- I note you use the term "AGM-28 Hound Dog", yet "GAM-87 Skybolt" is shortened to 'Skybolt'
- I'd wikilink 'irradiation'
- "Chevaline's existence was revealed in January 1980" - can you expand on this? Was it deliberately revealed? If so, why did they suddenly decide to go public?
- The Secretary of State for Defence, Francis Pym, deliberately revealed it in the House of Commons. It was in the context of debate about whether to replace Polaris with Trident. The public announcement enhanced Polaris's deterrent value. It also embarrassed the former Labour government. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- " Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged" - adjusted for inflation, what is the cost equivalent to today?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Overall:
3 questions[edit]
Hi Hawkeye7, can you pls check these?:
- to proceed impacting schedules - 'without' impacting?
- Rowland Baker v Roland Baker
- came to £520 million - I can't get maths to work
Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom good content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- A-Class military history articles
- A-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- A-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- A-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- A-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- A-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles