Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British hydrogen bomb programme

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British hydrogen bomb programme

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British hydrogen bomb programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After High Explosive Research comes the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, this looks good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as always. A few comments:

  • A few mentions of the United States could probably be shortened to US (or U.S. if you prefer).
  • from a Vickers Valiant bomber piloted by Isn't the type of plane and certainly the name of the pilot a little too much detail, especially in the lead?
    checkY I didn't think so, but I've dropped it. (The reference to the plane and pilot, not the bomb.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term was already familiar That sentence doesn't seem like a particularly crucial detail in the background.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we pare back the background section at all? I know you're summarising lengthy articles on important subjects (I've reviewed many of them!) but at some point you have to send the reader to one of those articles if they want more detail. We don't need extensive detail on the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons development, just enough that the reader can tell where this bit of history fits into the jigsaw.
    checkY I have pared the section back to half its size. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose quote is "became very much less special"?
    Margaret Gowing. Per the footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the bit about Canada becoming a partner immediately relevant to this article?
    checkY No; removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • D notice No. 25 prohibited D Notices don't prohibit, per se, they're officially just requests even though it's almost unheard of for the mainstream media to defy one
    checkY How about "forbid"? We have a similar system in Australia. They are nominally voluntary too, but the government can always amend the Crime Act to add penalties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the October 1951 election is probably unnecessary; stating that he replaced Attlee is probably sufficient for the purposes of this article, like you do with Eisenhower and Truman later on.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably get away with referring to the Marquess of Salisbury as just Salisbury on subsequent mentions
    checkY Is that how they are normally referred to? Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    British aristocratic titles are a little weird, but I'm certain this is correct; cf Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, who is invariably known as "Wellington". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hulme's daughter's murder conviction seems a little off-topic; we don't really need to know much about these people beyond their involvement in in the H bomb project.
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • by a Vickers Valiant bomber of No. 49 Squadron RAF piloted by Wing Commander Kenneth Hubbard I can see the case for including the aircraft type, but do we really need to know the pilot and the squadron he belonged to? In the Operation Grapple article, sure, but this article should be a higher-level overview.
    checkY Originally, the Grapple article was very sparse. I overhauled it after writing this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a handful of edits to trim down some details, particularly dates, but otherwise there's not a lot else to criticise. The content is outstanding, but it could probably be trimmed by a few hundred words to avoid overloading the reader with names and dates and bits of background that didn't directly affect this programme. Hope this helps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses and the paring back, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Hawkeye, this is looking good. A few minor comments from me:

Another excellent article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/British_hydrogen_bomb_programme&oldid=1143876825"