Talk:British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Nominator: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will review, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead

Background

Falklands War

British nuclear weapons

  • The Royal Air Force had 250 WE.177 bombs. The Royal Navy was assigned 43 WE.177A nuclear depth bombs.: two short sentences, suggest making one but also suggest reversing the subject matter so that the RN is mentioned first, to follow on from the RN submarines. Worth mentioning that they were for ASW purposes? Cite 11 would support that.

Nuclear weapons policies

  • No issues identified in this section

Nuclear depth bombs

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Picking this up again.

  • one final comment with regard to the Deployment subsection of the Nuclear depth bombs section: While these aircraft formed a key part of the UK's nuclear deterrent force they operated only as conventional bombers. I assume this is in respect of their use in the Falklands conflict, this should be made more explicit.

Alleged ballistic missile submarine deployment

Aftermath

  • It was also alleged that the British had raised nuclear depth charges...: A check on the terminology here, do the sources specifically state "depth charges" here or should that be "depth bombs"?
  • The Grove quote in the 3rd paragraph should be directly followed by a citation.

Works consulted

  • Brown listed but not cited
  • Given there are no page references, shouldn't Polmar be treated as a webpage citation like, e.g. the IWM citations?

Source checks

  • I am happy to AGF given nominator's history. Nonetheless, I have done a few checks of the online sources, for sake of completeness.
  • In respect of Background, the first paragraph, the fact that the Falklands are a British Overseas Territory isn't supported but the IWM cite from the following paragraph would provide that support.
  • In the British Nuclear Weapons section, where used, the Norris & Kristensen cites in this section generally checks out although I am not seeing explicit support for the statement "...intended to be used against Soviet submarines" although perhaps arguably that is implied given the nature of the weapon.
  • In the Allegations section, cites 21 and 36 (both Freedman 1989), and 37 (Henley) check out
  • In the Aftermath section, cites 10 (Guardian), 40 (SMH), 41 (Freedman 1989) and 25 (Polmar) check out.

Other stuff

  • For some reason, the dupe links tool isn't disregarding the first usage of the links in the lead, but regardless, there are definitely a few in the second half of the article, beginning with Royal Air Force in the final paragraph of the deployment section.
  • Image tags look OK.

That's my review done of what I found to be an interesting article. Zawed (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Realised I neglected the Earwig copyvio tool; running this against the sources, the most similar (at 15.3%) detected was Polmar but most of that was quotes and specific terms e.g. Treaty of Tlatelolco. The same article popped up when searching against Google. No issue here. Zawed (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot for this review Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This all looks good. I will be passing as GA as I believe that this article meets the necessary criteria. Great work! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you again Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply