Talk:Bold Orion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bold Orion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bold Orion 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 20, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Bold Orion air-launched ballistic missile was the first missile ever to intercept an artificial satellite?

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / Cold War GA‑class

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

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rocketry GA‑class Low‑importance

	Rocketry portal 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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight GA‑class Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States GA‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal 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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mil Hist B-class Commentary

Looks good for a B-class article. I assessed coverage as "yes", because it looks covered and I'm taking in good faith it is, though I admit I am no authority on the history of ballistic missiles. I would suggest some sentence to wrap it up at the end, like, "With the success of the final test, the innovations of the Bold Orion were implemented in the next missile..." or something. Roger out. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. weapins. Change to weapons.

Done

2. USAF's. Suggest - Changing USAF to United States Air Force, as some people might not understand that acronym

I added a clarification of the acronym after where the full name is given on the line above.

3. change the Bibliography so that it is in alphabetical order.

Done

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Nice work Bush, Passed. Thurgate (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What country is this anyway?

It appears that this article has a minor case of UK English, e.g., "authorisation." As this is an American weapons system, designed, built, and tested in the United States, why is UK English even being contemplated for use here? It's bad enough seeing it in the ISS article but here there can't even be a remote excuse for it.