# Talk:STRAT-X

This review is transcluded from Talk:STRAT-X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Though there is not a length requirement for GA, my immediate comment is that the article is a bit short, at 961 words. I've taken a quick look, and it looks pretty good. I'll probably finish the review sometime in the next hour. →Στc. 07:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


### Lead
Does study have to be linked?
STRAT-X has been acknowledged by independent journalists as greatly influencing the U.S. nuclear posture. How was it influenced?
Well, it did result in at least four weapons systems, and how the nuclear triad is operated. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a major point, but should that be added?


### Background
Were these ICBMs to be used operationally, they would have posed a significant risk to U.S. ICBMs. Needs a reference.
Meanwhile... Please rephrase.


### Study
government red tape does not sound encyclopedic.
In the end, a twenty-volume report covered no less than 125 different weapon-basing ideas, nine of which were reviewed in great detail.[1][4][3] Please reorder the references, so it results in Stuff.[1][3][4]


#### Findings and consequences
Nevertheless, the former was only a prototype, while 50, out of the original 100, of the latter were fielded (the Peacekeeper had since been retired). Are commas (which have never been my strong point) after 50 and 100 necessary?


### Legacy
Per WP:ELPOINTS, external links in the body of an article are discouraged.
All done.  Done --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good enough for me.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on STRAT-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018002131/http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1970-1980&sd=01%2F01%2F1970&ed=12%2F31%2F1989 to http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/milestones.asp?dec=1970-1980&sd=01%2F01%2F1970&ed=12%2F31%2F1989
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)