# Talk:Polaris (UK nuclear programme)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polaris (UK nuclear programme)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 00:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
It would be of interest to mention in the lead what exactly is the different between a regular and "hardened" warhead.
Changed to "hardened against the effects of radiation and nuclear electromagnetic pulse"  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
"the UK developed an improved front-end" - can you find a better choice of words than front-end? Would 'nose cone' be appropriate or is that not entirely the same thing?
Front end is the technical term. Have a look at the picture of the Polaris Missile. You can see Chevaline Penetration Aid Carrier (PAC) behind the Re-entry Vehicle Carrier. (It's on its side.)  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
"that Polaris was as yet unproven, that Polaris would be expensive," - I'd simplify to "that Polaris was as yet untested and would be expensive"
Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd introduce the Skybolt to the reader as an 'air-launched ballistic missile'
Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I note you use the term "AGM-28 Hound Dog", yet "GAM-87 Skybolt" is shortened to 'Skybolt'
Aargh. These designations are not used in any of the sources. Shortened to "Hound Dog".  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd wikilink 'irradiation'
Done.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
"Chevaline's existence was revealed in January 1980" - can you expand on this? Was it deliberately revealed? If so, why did they suddenly decide to go public?
The Secretary of State for Defence, Francis Pym, deliberately revealed it in the House of Commons. It was in the context of debate about whether to replace Polaris with Trident. The public announcement enhanced Polaris's deterrent value. It also embarrassed the former Labour government.   Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
" Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged" - adjusted for inflation, what is the cost equivalent to today?
£240 million in 1972 is worth about £3.37 billion in 2018; £1 billion in 1981 is about £3.87 billion; on Wikipedia we inflate research projects using GDP rather than CPI.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable? 
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage? 
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? 
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Outstanding work. Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy pass this now. Well done. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, can you pls check these?:

to proceed impacting schedules - 'without' impacting?
Y Yes. Corrected.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Rowland Baker v Roland Baker
Y It should be "Rowland".  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
came to £520 million - I can't get maths to work
Y Added "running costs were around £25 million per annum. Okay, the numbers don't quite add up.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bertrand Russell leads anti-nuclear march in London, Feb 1961.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)