Talk:Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Digest of Federal Emergency Measures

@LavaBaron: I've re-redlinked the Digest of Federal Emergency Measures. Even though its contents are [presumably] secret, its existence clearly isn't, and there are typically lots of things that can be written about something without necessarily knowing its contents. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: On review, after some checking: you're right, and I was wrong. There's no mention of it at all, anywhere, and it thus fails not only WP:RS, but also WP:V. I'm marking it as {{fact}}, and unless someone can back up its existence, we should delete mention of it completely. Which prompts the question: what, at least publicly, did replace Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus, and when did it do so? -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of a wider topic?

G'day, interesting article and thanks for your efforts so far. I wonder, though, if potentially the shortness of the article will tell against it in a GA review. Perhaps this could be solved by rolling this article into a broader article on the National Plan for Emergency Preparedness, which could cover all of the plans including this one and Plan C etc. This article could then just redirect there. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

AustralianRupert I think that's a very good idea and I will certainly start work in that direction. Thanks for this excellent suggestion. LavaBaron (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 12:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be starting the GA review of this article in the next day or so. I usually provide my feedback in sections over a day or two instead of everything at once, but feel free to respond/address any comments even before the review is complete if you want to. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. The GA review page is on my watch list so just post here to keep all conversations in one place.  MPJ-US  12:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• First things first, last section has two "citation needed" tags. @LavaBaron: those need to be addressed.

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD is a bit short, if this truly is a GA then the lead should properly recap the article better.
• Headers should not start with "The"
• Is really short - not that it cannot be a Good Article if short, but it's harder to show that it's broad in coverage when there is not a lot of coverage. I will be looking into "broad in coverage" later on.

Copyright violationsTool

• Tool is gone, I have tried to google some of the sentences to see if anything comes up and I am not seeing anything.

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• No issues Y

Well Written

• There is a source in the lead, it should be sourced where the statement is made in the actual article.

The Plan

• "Primary government command and control facilities, such as the White House and the Pentagon, would be destroyed and emergency relocation facilities would be rendered minimally operable as a result of physical damage and the effects of radiation sickness on staff." - reads a little clunky, too many "And" constructions here. Perhaps rephrasing the last part to "as well as the effects of radiation sickness on staff", at least that's taking one of the "And"s out of it?
• "remained functioning" should be "remained functional"
• The subsequent exercise laid out that the president would most likely be dead, so how does he sign the orders? Provide some details around that please. And frankly this is super high level basically stating "Officials still alive would be responsible for stuff"
• What would the significance of "suspension of publication of the Federal Register" be?

Exercise Spade Fork

• "was run from September 6, 1962" should be "ran from September 6, 1962"
• "provide cover" I think it would be clearer if it said "provide an official cover story". And I think this section could use more detail to help

Supersession

• "changing conditions and assumptions about the nature of nuclear war" - again gets really generic, what were the changing conditions? what were the asumptions? A good article provides those kinds of details.
• "mid 1960s" should be "mid-1960s"

Sources/verifiable

• Print sources should have a publisher location if at all possible.

Broad in coverage

• Hm I am going with no here - no details on who came up with the plan, approved it, in place from-to etc. Yes it describes the plan itself to some extent but what about the context of the plan?
• Really not a lot of detail - very high level recap, I would like something more specific if possible?
• The plan itself is really just one paragraph of the entire article, the rest is the "precondition" if you will and then a drill, but again just high level stuff.

Neutral

• Yes Y

Stable

• Yes Y

Illustrated / Images

• No, not a deal breaker

• @LavaBaron: - Review complete, I am putting this on hold for seven days to allow for improvements to be made. If you're working on improvements when the seven days are up I can easily extend that. It's not badly written in any way but it's not real broad enough, nor giving enough context to be a Good Article currently IMO. And a few citation tags etc.  MPJ-US  02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK thank you so much for this very thorough and expedient review. Due to the nature of the topic, I will not be able to address your understandable breadth concerns without OR. I'll go ahead and make the rest of the changes, but the GA review may need to be generally abandoned or failed. LavaBaron (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron - That is your call, if you want time I can give it to you, if you're sure it's not possible I can fail it now.  MPJ-US  03:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MPJ-DK I'm fairly familiar with this topic beyond the contents of this article and know for a fact it will not be possible to meaningfully expand it with currently available RS. To save you time it may be best to go ahead and fail it now. Sorry for the inconvenience but thank you again for your valuable input. I will be making the rest of your suggested edits regardless. LavaBaron (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, thank you.  MPJ-US  22:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)