Talk:STRAT-X/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sp33dyphil in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Though there is not a length requirement for GA, my immediate comment is that the article is a bit short, at 961 words. I've taken a quick look, and it looks pretty good. I'll probably finish the review sometime in the next hour. →Στc. 07:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Does study have to be linked?
  • STRAT-X has been acknowledged by independent journalists as greatly influencing the U.S. nuclear posture. How was it influenced?
  • This isn't a major point, but should that be added?

Background

edit
  • Were these ICBMs to be used operationally, they would have posed a significant risk to U.S. ICBMs. Needs a reference.
  • Meanwhile... Please rephrase.

Study

edit
  • government red tape does not sound encyclopedic.
  • In the end, a twenty-volume report covered no less than 125 different weapon-basing ideas, nine of which were reviewed in great detail.[1][4][3] Please reorder the references, so it results in Stuff.[1][3][4]

Findings and consequences

edit
  • Nevertheless, the former was only a prototype, while 50, out of the original 100, of the latter were fielded (the Peacekeeper had since been retired). Are commas (which have never been my strong point) after 50 and 100 necessary?

Legacy

edit
  • Per WP:ELPOINTS, external links in the body of an article are discouraged.

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Good enough for me.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: