Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project Emily

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project Emily

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Project Emily/archive1

A now long-forgotten deployment of American-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1963. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is a very interesting article on a fascinating topic - great work. I have the following comments:

" During the Cuban Missile Crisis, 59 of the missiles" - perhaps give the date here
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"requested a specification for a ballistic missile with 2,000-nautical-mile (3,700 km; 2,300 mi) range" - "requested a specification" is a bit unclear. Did he ask for such a missile to be designed, or did he want the requirements to be developed ahead of design work commencing?
Y The latter. The Operational requirement became OR.1139. Added a bit more, using your phrasing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. One of the enduring strange things about the Cold War nuclear programs was how bureaucratic they often were, except for when they weren't. The British nuclear weapons program seems to have ranged from arcane levels of Whitehall process-for-process sake to high farce (Peter Hennessy recounts bizarre stories such as the serious options for the PM to authorise the use of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s including ringing from a pay phone - for which change was always kept in his car - and using the The Automobile Association's radio network!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of getting into an arcane topic largely of interest to me, can the article discuss the status of the RAF bases which hosted missile sites? Were these all World War II-era airfields which the RAF had hung onto after the war? (and were they being used for any purpose, or were they reserve real estate?)
Y Added a paragraph on this to "Deployment". They were all WWII-era airfields which the RAF had hung onto after the war. Some were unused, others were used for various purposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about the war plans for these missiles? Did the British Government intend to fire them all at the USSR, and were they targeted at cities or military targets? (at roughly this time the V Bomber force was tasked mainly with attacking Soviet air defences with nuclear weapons to clear the way for American nuclear bombers)
Y Added: "Under the war plan that had gone into effect on 1 August 1962, the RAF's bombers and Thor missiles targeted 16 cities, 44 airfields, 10 air defence control centres and 20 IRBM sites." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do any sources discuss how realistic this deployment was given how vulnerable the UK was to nuclear attack and how long it took to fire the missiles? (eg, the famous Four-minute warning and British Government modelling which found that a small number of Hydrogen bombs would effectively destroy the country).
This is discussed in the Termination section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding a photo of the preserved missile sites from those on Commons (eg, those at Category:RAF Harrington, Thor missile site - which aren't great, but show a relic of this activity).
Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

File:Thor loaded into C-133.jpg; The license tag is misplaced, please put into relevant section.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:England_relief_location_map.jpg; The image looks, licensing is valid as well. But my only concern is the way the image has been placed in the article. It creates a big blank to the left of it. I would suggest to reduce the size, and make text flow across it.
Making the image smaller makes it harder to read. If you make your screen wider, the image will slot in beside the table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That's a good one . All looks good. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

Will post soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"dispersed to 20 RAF air stations, as part of the UK nuclear deterrent." Wouldn't this be "UK's nuclear deterrent?", perhaps "British nuclear deterrent" would work better as well.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to concerns over the buildup of Soviet missiles, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower met Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Bermuda in March 1957 to explore the possibility of short-term deployment [of the Thor missiles] in the United Kingdom until more powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles were deployed."
Y Added. Also changed "more powerful" to "longer ranged" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the British government restarted its own development effort,[5] now codenamed High Explosive Research." by "now codenamed" does this mean it was not called H.E.R., and that is a modern term for the project? If so, is the original project name known?
Y The project was known as HER. The original, wartime project was Tube Alloys. Changed to "which was codenamed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Blue Streak was estimated to cost £70 million, with the United States paying 15 per cent" probably want to put [of this cost] at the end of this.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposal to base USAF Thor squadrons in Britain was dropped on 12 October 1957." Is it known why this was done? Logistical issues? Political issues?
Y Added "in view of the British political opposition" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In October 2012 the former launch sites at RAF Harrington and RAF North Luffenham were granted listed status." Might want to expand upon this, explain how significant this is in England, etc.
If I knew anything about it. And the listed building article doesn't tell me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury Markowitz

Support: Normally long paragraphs annoy me, but that's because when I see them they are normally a mix of unrelated topics. This article does not suffer from that problem, and I found the body really readable. My only concern is the alignment of the map, but I've asked over on the pump to see if there is a solution. Really liked this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pump says we should add "|float = center" to the map. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't understood the problem. I've made a change that I think will help. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.