Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nassau Agreement

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nassau Agreement

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Nassau Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nassau agreement (also known as the Skybolt crisis) came about when the US decided to cancel the Skybolt missile, which the UK had based its independent nuclear deterrent on. After a series of negotiations, the US permitted the UK to buy the Polaris submarine instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit

I think that's anything. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: You happy with Hawkeye's responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape, I reviewed it at GAN in late 2017, couldn't find a real lot then and have looked at what has changed since. I only have a few comments:

Lead
Body

That's all I could find this time around. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Just a few things.
  • I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of the presence in Nassau of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who wanted a similar deal for his country, but was on the outs with both Kennedy and Macmillan and did not get it. In fact, the presence of Diefenbaker, who had an awkward lunch with both men, may have contributed to Kennedy's hasty departure. Google "Diefenbaker Nassau Agreement".
    Aaarggh! This is the sort of comment that one always fears, but also the main reason that one puts articles up for review. I'll confess that I didn't know about this, and it wasn't in my sources, but now that I'm aware, I will add it to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a section on Canada. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathize entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but avoided cancellation by reprogramming $70 million from the previous year's allocation.[23]" I might say "appropriation" rather than "allocation"
    checkY Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, met with President Dwight Eisenhower, at Camp David near Washington in March 1960, and secured permission to buy Skybolt without strings attached." I would delete the second comma. Camp David is not THAT near to Washington by the way.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to update the 2019 inflation equivalents to 2020?
    The {{Inflation/year}} template is is used, so it will automatically update the year and the amounts when more recent data is uploaded.
  • In Grimond's comment, do you want to correct B52 to B-52?
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

All sources seem to be of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently used with the following exceptions;

  • ISBNs cited seem to be a mix of 10 digit and 13 digits.
    I just take them from the indicia of the books. A bot usually comes along and reformats them. But the MilHistBot has this functionality too, so converted them all to isbn13. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Bothwell, is "Univ of British Columbia Press" the formal name of the publisher?
    (Has a look at the indicia.) It says "UBC Press", so gone with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boyes needs a location.
    It isn't in the indicia, so added from the publisher's website. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dumbrell, John (2006). A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the Cold War to Iraq." This is a book, so shouldn't this title be in title case?
    Altered to title case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Jones, "Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire". Given that Milton Park is the name of the industrial estate it's on, it may be too local to mention.
    Oh. Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moore, Richard (2010). Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons 1958–64. Nuclear Weapons and International Security since 1945. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-230-21775-1. OCLC 705646392." Is Nuclear weapons and International Security since 1945 part of the title or a misplaced motto?
    No, it is the name of the series. There are four of them so far, each covering six years. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priest, Andrew (July 2005). "'In Common Cause': The NATO Multilateral Force and the Mixed-Manning Demonstration on the USS Claude V. Ricketts, 1964–1965". The Journal of Military History. 69 (3): 759–789. JSTOR 3397118." Should the name of the ship be italicised?
    Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No spot-checks done. I don't own any of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

This is a very good article. I have the following comments:

  • "and reduced the risk of a nuclear strike on the British Isles" - is this in regards to Polaris more effectively deterring the Soviets, or increasing the suitability of the British nuclear weapons to a Soviet first strike? (or both?)
    Primarily the first: unlike bombers or missiles, it could not be neutralised by a first strike. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Polaris was a better weapon system for the UK's needs" - it would be good to expand upon this, as this is an important issue underpinning this article. The UK was hugely vulnerable to a first strike, with such an attack being expected to destroy the country as a functioning entity and kill most of the political and military chains of command in a matter of minutes. As a result, a nuclear weapons deterrent dependent on successfully launching bombers during the "three minute warning" wasn't very credible. Sending the deterrent to sea changed things completely, as it was now expected to survive the destruction of the UK and be able to launch a retaliatory attack.
    Added a bit more on British nuclear strategy, which evolved over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the British Polaris missiles operate under a dual key system? My understanding is that they didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct. The British do not use PALs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Nassau_Agreement&oldid=965478668"