Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/BGM-75 AICBM/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

BGM-75 AICBM

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. This discussion is less focused than many GA reviews, debating "meta" questions as much or more than the individual article; I'm hesitant to summarize a discussion where almost no one talked in terms of keeping or delisting. It seems safe to say, however, that at a minimum there's no consensus to delist here, and the article is therefore kept. Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments and early discussion on 9 August 2013

Considering good article criteria: Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funding was not continued apparently, but the article does not say anything about funding estimations or the economic climate. The are no reasons given for cancelling the project. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the project should be discussed with the political and economic climate of the time in the USA and relevant parts of the world. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently some work was done on the missile before is was cancelled and I think that it is a major omission that details of what was done and by who is not included. What firms were contracted and how much were they paid? Which parts were official secrets, if any? When will official secrets (if any) be divulged? Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no more information that can be added to this article at this juncture, then it is likely to be an article of limited subject matter that could only reach GA standard after more information is released. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) No, no actual work was done on the missile before it was canceled. Please read the following line from the article; "...before any formal specifications for the ZBGM-75 could be developed or requests for proposals from industry issued..." And are you seriously asking for classified information? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work was started in May 1966 and cancelled sometime in 1967. So what happened during this time? Were any informal or provisional specifications made? The worked on the silo, so they must have known appropriately how big it was going to be, at least. The article does not say anything about classified information - perhaps another omission. Of course, it is not possible to get secret information for Wiki articles, but sometimes after 30 years information is released by governments. Another omission is the dimensions of the silos. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know how classified material works? If it's classified, we cannot possibly know that it exists. Are you asking for us to speculate about the possibility of still-classified material that might someday be released?
  • In the UK certain things are released after 30 years and some after even more time. For example, we know that cabinet discussions will be published after 30 years. So where is all the costing information on the missle, and who suggested starting the project, and who worked on it? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about missiles designed in the US, not the UK. Classified material in the United States is never automatically declassified, it has to be approved by the Department of Defense before it is released. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know how this is organised in the USA, but it seems plausible that classified material may be declassified by the Department of Defence. Anyway, when relevant information has been released in the USA, then it be used as a source for significant omissions in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 3b. Possible omission: sizes of the structures discussed including the silos. Snowman (talk)
  • I looked this article, because you implied that it was a very short GA on the WP Birds talk page. I am trying my best to be objective about the article, so it does not matter how I stumbled upon it. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know what the less charitable might think, but I think that speculating about it is not relevant here. I think that you were pointing to this article as an example of one that is outrageously short on the WP Birds talk page. Being an outlier I think that this article's GA status is likely to be doubted and I see this GAR as appropriate. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll bite. So for the sake of argument, I'll agree that the GAR is appropriate. Have you realized yet that your objections are:
  • A.) completely unactionable
  • B.) entirely without support from the GA Criteria
  • C.) ridiculous
  • D.) all of the above
  • Criteria 5. The article is inherently unstable, because of a large number of omissions. If information about the missile or the project to build the missile becomes available, then the article would need rewriting or huge expansions. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems common sense to me that any sort on article unsuitability would exclude GA status. My point is that an article may not be illegible for GA status because it is inherently unstable. This is described as "... article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" in Wikipedia:Featured topics where FAs and GAs can be collected together in a "book". Snowman (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "unstable" has that narrow definition in the GA criteria, then the large omission of private, secret, or un-publiced information that make the article inherently unstable would fail the article in criteria 3a. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WIAGA#cite_note-4. Are you honestly this unfamiliar with the GA Criteria? I'm starting to think you've long-since realized you were wrong to start this GAR, but are too proud to admit it, and so you have resorted to throwing everything you can think of, in the hopes that something will stick. Please learn what the criteria for a Good Article is and is not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your statement, it's obvious that you were unaware of the detail of criterion #5 - which strongly indicates you didn't bother to read the GAC before opening this GAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that I am entirely justified in starting a GAR. I am seeing the article as an outsider and when I read the article I notice what is not there. I note that User Bushranger wrote parts of the article, so I would like to ask him if he would like to declare a conflict of interest or not. I see this as a non-GA short article with major omissions. I am not the only person to doubt this GA; see this comment on the articles talk page by User David.s.kats, where he asks "Can someone explain me, why this stub is a good article"? Snowman (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • David.s.kats also does not know what a stub is, so is he the best person to use as support for your argument?
  • And how exactly is the author of an article participating in its GA review a conflict of interest? Do you not know how Wikipedia works? What on Earth have you been doing for the past 8 years and 90,000 edits here? Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was almost three years ago, and once it was explained that the article is not a stub, notbody else has complained. As Parsecboy points out, there is no conflict of interest here, unless you're suggesting that I was somehow involved in the development of the weapon (which would be a good trick seeing as it was cancelled 13 years before I was born)? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that an author is expected to participate in any review of his or her work, don't you? Seriously. Answer this question: what on Earth have you been doing for the past eight years that you are this shockingly unfamiliar with basic practice on Wikipedia? Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)First, that doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, fall under WP:COI as Wikipedia defines it. Secondly, if you raised valid concerns about the article, I might very well have agreed with them - but your behavior here, constantly indicating that you don't understand the GA criteria and following a "you say that isn't applicable - so I'll throw this at it hoping it sticks, instead", has regretfully shredded the good faith I had at the start of this discussion and had led me to the conclusion that you are determined to get it delisted, whatever it takes, and given the way it came about I can only conclude that that is because it's an attempt to avoid Réunion Parrot becoming a GA. Accordingly, I am washing my hands of this matter - due to the fact that I am no longer able to reach any conclusion other than that this GAR was created for WP:POINTy reasons, I will no longer participate in it. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is all well and good, except that your criticisms have been anything but constructive. Are you going to withdraw this farce of a GAR or am I going to take this to ANI? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this article is a GA for the reasons that I have explained. I think that my comments have been constructive to the GA project and in keeping with a standard review that could lead to de-listing. This is a community GAR for the community to decide. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last paragraph could be rewritten for more clarity: "After the cancellation of the WS-120A, no further development of new ICBMs was to be done until 1972, when the M-X project, which became the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, was begun.[1] The Peacekeeper entered service in the mid-1980s, and served until 2005,[6] the Minuteman family of ICBMs outlasting both of its planned replacements in service.[7]" What does "no further development of new ICBMs was to be done until 1972" mean? Was further development prohibited by some bill or treaty? Or simply didn't happen? As for the last sentence, its meaning is clear but it is a run-on sentence. The 2nd sentence of the lead "Intended to replace the LGM-30 Minuteman as the Air Force's standard ICBM, funding for the program was not allocated and the project was cancelled in 1967." is also a run-on sentence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See how the last paragraph reads now.
    • As for why no further development, I haven't seen anything conclusive, but I'd wager that the demands of Vietnam (Rolling Thunder, particularly) diverted the Air Force's attention (and more importantly, budget). As far as I know, there were no treaties or laws passed in the period that prevented further development (SALT I wasn't signed until 1972, for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the web pages cited as reference itself cites a book by James N. Gibson: "Nuclear Weapons of the United States", Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1996. Has anyone checked that out? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a Google Books search [1] suggests quite a few books and magazines cover this topic, so perhaps the claim of having exhausted the sources is premature. This book in particular suggests a possible infighting/politicking reasons why the program was created. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a highly dubious claim, given that STRAT-X recommended both the Navy's ULSM and the Air Force's BGM-75/WS-120A. If McNamara authorized STRAT-X to kill the Air Force missile program, and it instead recommended it, that was a giant miscalculation, though, again, since the author doesn't seem to know the conclusions of STRAT-X (or at least does not mention them apart from those that affected the Navy).
    • Nevertheless, I have added a bit more to the article from a couple of books. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite possible there's more in gBooks now than there was when I started the article, I'll take a look when I get a chance. One problem is that my muse is currently "off" when it comes to stuff that goes zoom and/or boom, but I'll get out the squeaky hammer and see what can be done about that. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim of unknown size is also dubious given "Initially the WS 120A had been sized (116 in. in diameter) to fit in the current Minuteman silos "and leave a little rattle space."" found in the above search (in Hearings, Reports and Prints of the House Committee on Appropriations - Volume 90, Parts 1-2 - Page 788). Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it appears that 95% of the sources in GB cover this under the WS-120A designation rather than any of the other ones, so perhaps the article should be renamed as well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fair to me. It does seem as though most sources refer to it by that designation.
  • And the AICBM moniker applied to the MX/Peacekeeper too [2] [3] [4] so that's probably not the best nomenclature to lead with in any case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw it suggested somewhere (can't recall where exactly now) that MX/Peacekeeper was a re-started WS-120A, and so the shared designation was correct. Don't know if that's true though. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked out James N. Gibson's "Nuclear Weapons of the United States". He covers the WS-120A in a couple of paragraphs of in the introduction to the section on MX/Peacekeeper (p. 29). There isn't anything important there not already included in this article. Here's basically all of the coverage: "Even before development of the Minuteman III began, on 23 October 1963 Headquarters SAC issued a Qualitative Operational Requirement for a large payload ICBM. Two years later, on 13 July 1965, a second QOR was issued for a mobile ICBM. In April of 1966 development then began on Weapon System 120A: an advanced ICBM that used a mobile basing system or hardened silos. On 4 October 1967, development of the Advanced ICBM was blocked by Secretary of Defense McNamara. In its place was begun a program to develop a hard rock basing system for the Minuteman III. Research into a new ICBM did not begin again until 2 November 1971 when the Air Force submitted ROC report 16-71. [a quote from this report follows] As a result of this report, in February of 1972 initial development of the Peacekeeper began." Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the reason this was nominated here is that it is short[5], this issue should be specifically addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If Snowman's sole justification for initiating this reassessment is the article's length then he was quite wrong to start it. The issue isn't length but completeness, and I have some reservations about that myself. But GA reviewers are supposed to review against the GA criteria, which do not include anything about length. Eric Corbett 13:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To start the community GAR, I listed where I thought the article was not compliant with good article criteria on 9 August 2013. You may wish to refer to my opening comments that listed remarks about the article with relevant GA criteria. Article length did not feature in my opening comments and I am aware that article length is not one of the GA criteria. I think that it is better to put my opening comments and all the early discussion of this GAR in a show/hide box at the top of this GAR than on the talk page, so I have moved the relevant text back to this page from the talk page, and the early text can now can be seen in a box above. The use of show/hide boxes is conventional in talk pages. The early edits are now re-united with relevant edit history. The early comments and discussion are now easy to access. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this is a strictly numbered GA criterion, but why is the article titled "BGM-75 AICBM" when the thing is never referred to as BGM-75 anywhere in the article text? I infer from the article that the "Z" is a temporary prefix, but it doesn't say as much straight out, and, more importantly, I gather that the Z was never actually taken off. Surely an article name should reflect the most common name used for the subject in the article itself? --GRuban (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The naming convention for American missiles used by the military history wikiprojects (as far as I'm aware, anyway) is to, as a rule, leave off prefixes from the official designation - this would be the 'X' (prototype), 'Y' (pre-production), and 'Z' (planning) prefixes, as they're, well, prefixes and not part of the designation proper. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then that needs to be prominently explained in the article. It's not reasonable to expect readers of an article to have to go look up the standards of a WikiProject that's at best mentioned on the article talk page. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the primary contributor to the article STRAT-X, I find statements such as "The Department of Defense began the STRAT-X study on 1 November 1966 to evaluate a new ballistic missile proposal from the Air Force" and "Ultimately, the Navy won the STRAT-X competition" particularly interesting. STRAT-X was a study conducted to evaluate future weaps systems, not a competition to see who would be the guardian of the next generation of nuclear weapons delivery. The Air Force and Navy both benefitted immensely from the study. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how Friedman presents it, for instance. On p. 202: "On 1 November 1966, the OSD began a new strategic weapon study, STRAT-X, to evaluate the Air Force proposal for a new strategic missile..." And on p. 204: "This undersea long-range missile system (ULMS) won the STRAT-X competition, although the final 1967 final report also called for..." Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/BGM-75_AICBM/1&oldid=1126726040"