Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A few points from me:

• the lead could do with expansion of content to summarise the full article, particularly the negotiations and UK nuclear policy

  Y I've expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• SSBN isn't really explained, it is just added to ballistic missile submarine (at second mention), but why we use that initialisation isn't clear, also I think the fact that the boats are nuclear-powered is not mentioned specifically

  Each type of warship has a code, sometime with suffixes. Submarines are SS; the suffix for ballistic missiles is B, and for nuclear powered is N. So ballistic nuclear submarines are SSBN. This derives from the US Navy, but is widely and sporadically used by others as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Tweaked the text so this is the first mention.

• there are quite a few duplicate links

  Y Hunted them down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "to serve aboard UK-built submarines" jars a bit. Perhaps "to be deployed aboard" or "to arm"?

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "improved front-end" seems colloquial

  It isn't; it is highly specific technical jargon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "Callaghan approached the United States President"

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• MISC 7?

  The UK cabinet forms ad hoc committees. Each ad hoc committee is given a unique prefix, either MISC (miscellaneous) or GEN (general) and a number. The Committee on Subversive Activities, for example, was known as GEN 183. I tried to link to United Kingdom cabinet committee, but it doesn't explain this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added this is a footnote. And a bit to United Kingdom cabinet committee.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  In the history of British nuclear weapons, all the key decisions have been taken by Cabinet subcommittees. Debate by the full cabinet has been rare, and debates in the House of Commons are rarer still. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• "pressed for an undertaking that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible" do what? Be retained in service?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Trident II D-5 research and development" could probably be R&D as it has already been introduced

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The warheads are not aimed at specific targets but await coordinates that can be programmed into their computers and fired with several days' notice" seems incongruous. How is this a deterrent, and how does the captain decide what targets to hit if he is at sea and has no communication with higher HQ? And several days' notice seems a strange timeframe?

  The article notes that the captains have sealed instructions for this eventuality. The deterrent effect comes from it being a second strike weapon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The British government contributed five per cent of its development costs" same observation re: R&D

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Circular error probable" should probably drop the initial cap

  Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should probably be noted that "Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines" are attack subs, and they should be linked

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• the senior RAF officers making comment on the (Navy-only) SDR gives rise to questions about RAF (which used to part of the deterrent) jostling for position/influence. Is there anything that can be added here?

  More like jostling for scarce defence funds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the SGP, SSP or Solidarity could be rated as a major party. SNP definitely, but the rest, I don't think so. Minor parties at best.

  Y I'll take your word for it. I know nothing about British politics. Deleted "all major" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• there is a citation needed tag in the Controversy section

  Y Grrr. The gnomes normally remove uncited text. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• CASD is introduced without spelling out (this happens in the next section). Perhaps CASD should be introduced earlier in the article?

  Y It's defined under "Patrols" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• The RUSI and Trident Alternatives Review sections beg the questions of what other options were considered viable

  Four alternatives were considered:

  1. Trident submarines on continuous patrol;
  2. Trident submarines not on patrol continuously;
  3. Attack submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles; and
  4. Land-based nuclear weapons

  I didn't feel that the review was important enough to go into a lot of detail about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added this. Note how it doesn't really examine many alternatives. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• BASIC is introduced then introduced again

  Y Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• it is hard to see how the Trident Commission's focus on disarmament impacted on the decision to retain essentially the same deterrent

  Officially, Trident is the UK's contribution to nuclear disarmament. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• what does "out-turn price" mean?

  The out-turn cost of a project is its actual construction cost. Generally this refers to the actual, total construction cost calculated at the end of the project, but it may also refer to the cost of a specific contract, or to costs incurred over a defined period. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Initial Gate" and 'Main Gate' are introduced without explanation

  The business case presented at Initial Gate includes the programme plan and costing for the procurement. The Main Gate business case is a key deliverable, along with the SRD, from the Assessment Stage. The process and products are similar to those used at Initial Gate but with a higher degree of maturity expected at this stage. Specifically, the SRD, ITEAP and refined TLMP feed into this business case, along with the system design synthesis, to inform the decision on whether to proceed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Added this is a footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Successor submarine/Successor-class is introduced without explanation, perhaps it should be clear that this is the Dreadnought-class?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be noted that Blunt's assessment of cost (2016) is actually more than the cost noted by Reuters in 2015?

  The two are in the same paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• images look ok.

  Whew. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: That's me done too. I think everything has been resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 all looks good, just needs some additional info in the lead, per the first comment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)