Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nike-X/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2017 [1].

Nike-X

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-X was the first ABM system intended to deal with full-scale attacks; it envisioned thousands of missiles flying every which way in a war that would last only a few minutes in total. Even with this protection, tens of millions would die, and it was this fact that ultimately led to it being abandoned - if the goal was to save lives, fallout shelters were both cheaper and more effective. Although Nike-X is certainly one of the most technically advanced ABM systems, it is also perhaps the least well known - I was something of a kid-expert on ABM back in the 80s, and I never even heard of Nike-X until recently. The article went through A-class on MILHIST with relative ease, and I've only done minor tweaks since, so It's time to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. Not sure how much I can get done tonight. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything I screw up.

  • "1,700 TJ": I assume TJ is terajoules? Suggest glossing or linking or both.
This is something the convert template does, and frankly, if people don't know what a kT is then they definitely won't know what a PT is. Just remove it and list kt perhaps?
I'll strike, since I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, maybe remove the conversion in this case as not being useful. That would also let you make it "...a large (400 kilotons of TNT) warhead..." which avoids "large 400 kilotons", which isn't quite right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did the conversion anyway, it was bugging me too.
  • Why is "cost-exchange ratio" italicized?
Good question. Fixed.
  • "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths, which, given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, would require several warheads to guarantee its destruction": suggest "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths. Given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, this meant several Soviet warheads would be needed to guarantee destroying the antennnas."
Yes, that is much better.
  • "As warhead weights began to decrease in the late 1950s, existing missiles had leftover throw weight that could be filled with enough decoys to create significant clutter" is unsourced.
In a note, does it need to be? I added Teller's book which explains what happened during Naboska and lowering weights in general.
I think it wouldn't hurt to add the source, since you have one. I see you have some unsourced notes later. If there's something that is hard to source because it's a fairly obvious deduction from sourced information, that might be a case for not citing anything. That happens in maths articles occasionally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system optionally retained Zeus, which could be used as a longer range system in areas away from cities": given the problems with Zeus, how did this argument go? What could make Zeus useful in any area?
Explained, hopefully.
Looks like you accidentally chopped part of your intended edit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed!
  • Some of the image captions simply repeat information from the article, but for example the "typical Nike-X deployment" caption should probably be cited, presumably to the source given with the image.
Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "This did not come to be": suggest "Colgate's suggestion was never adopted".
Much better.
  • Can we put a date on Colgate's letter to Science?
We can!
  • "Colgate's New Mexico Tech": it took me a few seconds to realize that the possessive indicated the institution where Colgate worked. Perhaps "New Mexico Tech, where Colgate was a professor" or whatever position he held at the time.
Rewrote the whole section, should be improved.
  • A couple more italicized terms that I think don't need to be: clutter fence and pulse chain.
Done!
  • The sources may not give this explicitly, but the top speed and top acceleration of the Sprint would be interesting to note. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (actually done on the back of an envelope, for the first time in all the times I've used that phrase) tells me it was over 40g acceleration and probably about 2.5 km/s. Not an issue if this isn't in the sources.
I definitely can find this - IIRC it was over 100g and that does seem like something the reader would like to see.
Ok I added this.
  • "The W66's explosive yield is reported as being in the "low kiloton" range, with various references claiming it is anywhere from 1 to 20 kilotons of TNT (4.2 to 83.7 TJ)." Since it's not currently in service, I'd suggest either "is reported as having been" or "was reported as". For the second part of the sentence I think "was" is better than "is".
Done

-- I've completed a read-through; the prose is in pretty good shape. I need to read it through again for structure -- tomorrow, if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on a second read-through:

  • "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base": "a Zeus base", not "the", surely?
It reads ok with "a", but I am curious about this... the "the" was "the base that was being attacked". Does this need to be re-worded?
Well, there's no explicit mention of an attacked base, so I think "a" works better. If the sentence had been "it was calculated that if a Zeus base were attacked by a salvo of only four ICBMs, the missiles would have a 90% chance of hitting the base", then it's "the base"; or if you had "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base being attacked" then that could also work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the missile gap article, and the dates given in this article, at the time Nike-X was authorized it may still have been the case that the USSR did not actually have enough missiles to overwhelm Zeus. Is that the case? The lead says it was "expected that the Soviets would have hundreds" so I'm guessing that it is, but I think it would be worth mentioning the uncertainty, and giving whatever information is known now about how many missiles the Soviets really had.
Yes, they did not actually have enough until the late 1960s. I changed expected to believed, which I think helps, but maybe there's a good point in the body where I could insert more?
That might be good; when I get a bit more time I'll see if I can suggest where. I should be able to spend more time on this over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • I think a date is necessary in the first paragraph of the lead -- perhaps "... designed by the US Army in the 1960s to ...".
Done.
  • Suggest making it "Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, felt ..." in the lead.
Indeed.
  • The first and last sentences of the third paragraph of History/Nike Zeus are too similar in structure and wording: "Test firings...began in...and were generally...successful".
Fixed.
  • "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were intended to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities": I don't think this sentence quite works -- the way the concepts are described isn't syntactically parallel. How about "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were either to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or to provide a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities"?
Rewrote this section.
  • The paragraph starting "Technological improvements in warheads and missiles" might be a good place to insert a note about the missile gap being imaginary.
    Added.
    I see you have this in a footnote in the previous paragraph, but I think it should be in the main text; and where you have it now it's talking about the past. I think the reader needs to know that it was some years past Khrushchev's comments that the Soviets finally started to have a significant number of ICBMs.
    Done.
  • "By the time the warheads passed through the fireball, about 60 kilometers (37 mi) above the base, it was only about 8 seconds from impact. That was not enough time for the radar to lock on and fire a Zeus before the warhead hit its target." Plural "warheads" at the start; then singular at the end. I tried a copyedit to make it plural throughout, but I don't know what the natural plural of Zeus would be: "...lock on and fire Zeuses before the warheads hit their targets"?
Zeus' <- note apostrophe?
I went ahead and changed it to singular throughout; I've struck this point but tweak my edit if you don't like it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest eliminating the italics on "nuclear blackout" and "threat tube"; I think it generally works better to use quotes to introduce these terms. Although on further consideration I wonder if this is a MoS issue; if you prefer italics for this and MoS is OK with it then you shouldn't change just for my preference. I'll see if I can find a discussion of it.
It is MOS. It's quotes for nicknames, italics for "first instance of a term using common words used in a different fashion. Who knows though, the MOS seems to change a lot...
OK, I'll quit complaining about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range, or even the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead, would allow warheads following it to approach unseen": needs some restructuring since "following it" doesn't make sense for Zeus' own warhead. How about "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range would allow warheads following it to approach unseen; the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead could have the same effect."?
Oh yes, I definitely like that.
  • "Known as the Zeus Multi-function Array Radar, or ZMAR, initial studies at Bell Labs started in 1960": needs rephrasing; the initial studies weren't known as ZMAR.
Corrected.
  • "The system optionally retained Zeus": I think this refers to the fourth system listed in that paragraph, but it should be clearer.
Some more cleanup there.
  • "the funding would instead be used for development of the new system": did McNamara specifically pick one of the two "new missile" systems from the previous paragraph, or was the choice between those two not made at this point?
Yes, he chose the most complex. Fixed.
  • "Low-altitude intercepts would also have the advantage of reducing the problem with nuclear blackout. The lower edge of the extended fireball is also at about 37 miles (60 km) altitude." I think it might be better to lead with the connection with the altitude in the previous paragraph. How about: "The lower edge of an extended fireball used to induce nuclear blackout would be at about 60 km (37 miles), the same as the altitude at which decluttering began. Hence low-altitude intercepts meant that deliberate attempts to create a blackout would not affect the operation of the Sprint missile."?
Used.
  • "would hand that information off to the DCDPS over voice-quality phone lines": I would guess this means that in the era before the internet, an existing POTS line was repurposed as a direct communications line? This is going to be a little obscure to many readers. If there's enough information in the source to put some explanation in a footnote I think it would be worthwhile.
OK.
  • "By 1965 the growing fleets of ICBMs in the inventories of both the US and USSR was making the cost of such a system very expensive": again I think it needs to be clear to the reader what was real and what was imagined to be the Soviet ICBM count.
Edited as above.
  • You have "became clear" twice in a short span in the "Problems" section.
Fixed.
  • The caption for the HIBEX says 400g, which isn't in the article, so I think that needs a citation.
Added.
  • "Hardsite proposed building small Sprint bases close to Minuteman fields": this is the HSD-II concept, I gather, and I think it's worth spelling out, even though the prior paragraph does say subsequent work focused on HSD-II.
Indeed.
  • "by 1966 the Air Force came to reject it largely for the same reasons it had rejected Zeus in the same role": is "reject" the right word here? They opposed Zeus; it was McNamara who rejected it, wasn't it? For the first use of "reject" I'm unclear on the context of their rejection: Hardsite was an ARPA study, not an Air Force study, so I assume this is the Air Force telling ARPA they weren't interested. Since the missile sites were their responsibility, was it their choice in this case to reject Hardsite, so "reject" really is the right word here?
Changed.
  • "By 1964 SCD had become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment": I think we need "planned" somewhere in the adjectives for "deployment", to make sure readers are clear it was never actually deployed.
Done.
  • "The deployments were arranged to be able to be built in phases, working up to complete coverage": suggest "The deployments were arranged so that they could be built in phases, working up to complete coverage".
Indeed.
  • "Through late 1964 Bell was considering the role of Zeus in the Nike-X system": given that Zeus had been cancelled in January 1963, what does it mean here to say "the role of Zeus"? And later in the article I see that DEPEX and I-67 concepts incorporated Zeus; so maybe the right question is what does it mean to say Zeus was cancelled?
The missile itself, not the system as a whole. Fixed.
  • There are four subsections under "Problems", but they don't really address problems; they're about studies of ways that Nike-X or Zeus could be used in other ways. It might be better to follow the "Problems" section with another subheading at the same level, titled something like "Alternatives".
Well it is both really, the problems with X and the alternatives. So I put in both.
  • "DEPEX described a system similar to that initially considered under Nth Country, but was designed to grow as the nature of the threat changed": needs rewording, I think -- shouldn't "system" be the subject of "was designed"? As it stands "DEPEX" is the subject.
Should be better now.
  • A couple more infelicities in that paragraph: "initially" used twice in quick succession; and "They imagined": I don't think there's a clear referent for "they".
It seems I use that word a lot...
  • "This was the first strong vote of support from the JCS for ABM; the Air Force had previously been dead-set against any Army system and had publicly criticized their earlier efforts in the press": a couple of things. First, I don't know much about how the JCS works, but is it the case that the Air Force has an effective veto over JCS decisions, so this indicated a change in the Air Force's position? If not, then I don't understand what the sentence is telling me. Second, the date of the JCS comments isn't given in the article, but it appears to be early or mid 1966. Earlier in the article you say that the Air Force were "initially supportive of the Hardsite concept"; isn't that in conflict with this?
Well the JSC includes everyone and the Air Force's input was enough to keep the organization as a whole against the ABM. I'm not sure the AF ever changed their mind, there seems to be enough evidence against it, but what did happen was that the Soviet deployment was so politicized that the US had to do *something*. I've re-worded some of it, see if it's better.
That's much improved. How about: "but the construction of the A-35 ABM systems around Tallinn and Moscow persuaded the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who had previously had no strong opinion on the matter, to override the Air Force's opposition"?
  • Suggest adding either a link or a {{main}} hatnote pointing to Sentinel in the "Nike-X becomes Sentinel" section.
Indeed.
  • In the MAR section, it took me a minute to figure out that GE and Sylvania's experimental systems were built under Zeus, but Sylvania's contract was awarded under Nike-X (at least, that's how I read it). If we could put a date on the contract award that would help make it clearer. I see groundbreaking started in March 1963, which is only two months after McNamara terminated Zeus, so perhaps the contract was actually awarded under Zeus?
It was indeed. It should be clearer now.
  • Was Sylvania also the contractor for MAR-II?
This too.
  • "Having learned more about nuclear hardening, this version was built": needs rephrasing; the version hadn't learned about nuclear hardening.
Indeed.
I tweaked this some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "horizontally" mean in "horizontally truncated pyramid"? Do you mean this shape?
That would be (in my terms) vertically truncated - the top is cut off. In this case the back half was cut off. Is there a better term?
I think I'd call that half a pyramid. How is it explained in the source? Is there an image? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only image is the one in the "This image shows". If you open the thumbnail you can make it out. That was almost identical to the one they were building on Kwaj.
  • The MSR paragraph has "This led to a design with... This led to an upgraded design with..."
Done.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to point out repetition: you have two sentences with identical sentence structure within a line or two of each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think I got those.
  • The Safeguard program is mentioned twice with no link and no explanation.
Fixed.
  • Is PRESS or TRADEX worth a redlink?
Both, but not yet, I've started them but it will be some time.
Struck, but I'd suggest linking them anyway; redlinks are a good thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I added them anyway.
  • "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned array phased-array radar": just checking that the repetition of "array" is correct, since I know almost nothing about radar terminology.
It is not.
  • The caption to the image of the Mickelsen TACMSR seems to be the only reference to that structure, so I think it needs a citation. You might also mention in the adjacent paragraph that only one was built.
Added.
  • The second paragraph of Description/Sprint is mostly in present tense, but the rest of the section is in past tense.
Should be better now.
Tweaked some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've finished this pass. Generally the article is in excellent shape; most of what's above is minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments updated above; just a couple of minor points left now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. The only remaining question I had was whether "horizontally truncated pyramid" is the best way to describe the shape in question (a pyramid with the back half cut off). I'm not going to hold up support for something this minor, but I'd suggest "half a pyramid", and then perhaps a note saying "the shape was a square pyramid with the rear half cut off" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Zeus system illustration
Scaled.
  • File:Nike_family_02.jpg: source link is dead
It is, but what do we do about that? Is there a way to do an archive url? Or is one needed at all?
If you can find an archived url (perhaps through Archive.org), that would be the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nike-X_deployment_concept.gif: is there a link to the report available?
I did some googling without much luck. It appears to be a single slide from a viewgraph report.
  • File:Fallout_shelter_photo.png is tagged as lacking author information
Added, from archives.gov.
Definitely Army, specifically U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Zeus would have been useful in the late 1950s when the Soviets had only a few dozen missiles, but it was of little use by the early 1960s when it was believed the Soviets would have hundreds. ": Throughout, I'm not taking a position on verb tenses and auxiliaries. There's an argument that "might have been useful" and "they had [however many they had]" would be better, but tenses can be a matter of taste.
Seeing as I barely understand these I'll avoid this, but I'm open to any specific suggestions.
  • Also, I'm not taking a position on inflation figures.
  • "The following section discusses the main developments during the Nike-X period.". Better would be something along the lines of "MAR, MSR, Sprint and Spartan were the main programs during the Nike-X period"
Agree, changed.
  • "Sylvania's design used MOSAR phase-shifting using time delays": Avoid used ... using.
Someone edited this it seems.
  • "a number" (a number of them): Some reviewers find "a number" to be ambiguous on Wikipedia, and I tend to agree.
In this case, the small number is definitely worth mentioning. But this was the only "a number" I found, is there another example?

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I reviewed this article in considerable detail during Milhist ACR, and at that time I indicated that while I supported it at ACR, I wouldn't support it at FAC entirely due to its size and the scope for spin-offs. I have reconsidered my position given the complexity of this weapons system and its development, and am happy to support on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't see a source review for formatting/reliability; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Do you mean the cites? They have been extensively reviewed as part of the A-class, is there a second process that needs to happen here in FAC? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a standard pre-promotion check at FAC -- I'll post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, 16:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Why "Central Intelligence Agency" in footnote 6 but "CIA" in footnote 12? Needs to be consistent.
Fixed.
  • What is the abbreviation for WSEG in footnote 17 mean?
It is explained in the actual citation (below) and in the body. I don't think a change is needed here.
  • Note b - the second sentence is partly sourced to a memoir (i.e. a primary source) and the rest is unsourced
The memoir in this case is Edward Teller, who pretty much ran the entire US warhead development program for decades. I cannot imagine a more reliable source. As to the last part, statements of mathematical fact do not require cites, but I've clipped it to make it clearer.
  • Note c is totally unsourced.
Is it likely to be challenged? In any event, I'll just remove it.
  • Note g has a quotation that's unsourced, and the last half of the note is also unsourced
Fixed.
  • Note i is unsourced
It is now sourced to Piland and Bell.
  • Note j is unsourced
It is now sourced to Bell.
It's not the website, it's the author. Dwayne A. Day is widely known military and space historian who is highly reliable.
The citation is only for the second statement, and I would argue that the person standing next to him would be a good source about what he said.
Okay.... then what is the source for the first part of the sentence? If the reference at the end of the two sentences doesn't cover both sentences - does this sort of unsourced sentence followed by a sourced sentence happen elsewhere in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a) the one before and after it, b) no idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a ISBN. Perhaps someone removed it?
"Leonard, Barry, ed. (1988). SDI : technology, survivability, and software. DIANE Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4289-2267-9." ? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The site is dedicated to making US budget numbers transparent, which was my goal in this case. I cannot speak to its "high" quality, however.
This is a scrape of a military press release, which I have pointed to in its place.
Changed to a book.
  • Looking at the WorldCat entry for the Clearwater source (footnote 114) - it is only held by three libraries and the publisher listed in WorldCat is different than the one listed in the article. Also - the WorldCat entry says in the notes "Published by Dissertation.com 1999." is this a dissertation? If so, what makes it a high quality reliable source?
That's the publisher of just that copy (and I believe it is simply incorrect metadata on Google), the original publisher was Academic Research Group. Clearwater is a well known nuclear historian, at least here in Canada, and has many publications through Dundurn.
Removed.
Did you access the actual book or just through google snippets/page preview? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bhushan & Katyal source (footnote 121) is only held by two libraries - see WorldCat result. What makes this a high quality reliable source?
Changed.
To? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 121 Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory seems like just who you might turn to for information on the history of radio astronomy at NMTech (they run NRAO).
  • If "Kaplan, Lawrence (2009). Nike-X Missile Antiballistic Missile System. unpublished (Technical report)" is unpublished, how is it a high quality reliable source? We rely on published sources.
Changed.
To? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The published Kaplan source. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 24 (Leonard, Barry) is ALSO listed in full in the bibliography - unlike most of the rest of the citations.
It is not, that is a different reference. The rule I use is that if a references is used only once I put it inline so the user doesn't have to click twice.
The publisher is the US government, specifically PSAC. As such, it is in the public domain. I have added a publisher to the cite.
  • The Kent source appears to be a memoir - and thus a primary source. We try to avoid primary sources - see WP:Primary
Kent is not a primary source for this article. He would be PS on an article on Kent. PS's are also perfectly acceptable as long as they are RS and not the basis for the entire article. That certainly is the case here, no?
  • The Bell Labs source - I'm not sure a history written by Bell Labs is the best source for large chunks of this article - since Bell Labs was the developer of the missile. We strive for independent sources, and it's hard to see how Bell Labs could be enough independent.
Martin Marietta the developer of the missile, not Bell. In any event, I seem to detect some confusion between PR and OR happening here. By my reading of OR and USEPRIMARY, this is not only perfectly acceptable but quite desirable.
I'm just going by what is in the article - " Bell Labs, the primary contractor for Nike, was asked to study the issue." Is that not a true statement? I note that "Martin Marietta" appears once in the article but "Bell" or "Bell Labs" occurs 16 times. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the concern here, are you questioning the factual accuracy of the text in question? This is a suberb source for just about the entire history of ABM in the US and it appears the concern here is boilerplate? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's tool flaked out trying to check this article - I'm not sure if its the toolserver being wonky or something with this article.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: @Maury Markowitz: It's quite hard to see which are your replies here as they are mixed up in the review. Have you addressed all the comments? @Ealdgyth: how is it looking to you now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, yes (just did one last one). Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeking clarification on a few issues and will leave the rest for other reviewers to consider, as is my usual practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything left here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth:I'm one of the reviewers; if you can identify which points you feel the other reviewers should take a look at that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, I'm going to see if I can follow up on the source comments Ealdgyth left, and help fix whatever needs fixing. It might be a day or two till I can get to it, though, as I have some other FAC reviews on the go at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now free to help out with this. Since it appears that most of Ealdgyth's points are dealt with, and she's indicated that she would like other reviewers to consider the outstanding points, I'll copy down to here the three I think are still at issue.

  • 'Technological improvements in warheads and missiles through the late 1950s greatly reduced the cost of ICBMs. During a visit to the US in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be building them "like sausages".' It appears the source used is only for the quote. I don't see anything in the source that indicates Khrushchev was speaking in the US, or in 1959; or that covers the "reduced the cost" sentence.
  • The Glenn Kent source is either used for information about what Kent did, none of which seems controversial, or for broad statements about the situation, which Kent would have been expert on. In some cases related information is cited elsewhere. I think this is fine.
  • The question about the usability of the Bell Labs source seems to me the most important issue. The document seems to have been written on government contract, and I would regard it as completely reliable for anything about the history, except that anything about Bells' own involvement should be looked at more carefully. Maury, I started looking through the source to see what you were using to support some of the material it is cited against, and found that you're using a straight page numbering for the sources which doesn't seem to correspond with the pages on the scanned PDF (e.g. I-31) or the overall PDF page number. For example footnote 34 is cited to pages 2-6 -- what does that correspond to in the source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the page number is that it is "two dash six", not "two to six". This is why I'm so against the ndash in page ranges! I missed the cost one, I've added that from MacKenzie (one of the weirdest books I've read). Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That takes care of the first sentence; how about "During a visit to the US in 1959"? I don't see that in the Orlov source.
  • Looking through some of the Bell Labs cites:
    • You have "The resulting machine would still be huge and expensive" cited to 2-5, but I think it needs to be 2-3.
    • The paragraph starting "A fresh look" mentions HIBEX, HSD-I, HSD-II, and Hardpoint Demonstration Array Radar, but I don't see those terms in 2-12 to 2-13, which is what's cited.
    • Footnote 54 is cited to page 213; should that be 2-13?
    • Footnote 46 is cited to support "it became clear that it would never survive a vote in Congress and be deployed; I can't find that on 2-10.

-- I'll look at a couple more in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1959 turned out to be 1957. Cited.
The resulting - I see it on that page.
Confusing pages, 2-3 and 2-13 are the two main ones that contain all of this.
Fixed.
Can't recall source, removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All OK except "the resulting"; it's the "huge and expensive" I don't see. The 2-5 I'm looking at is mostly an illustration; it starts "view of city defense"; that's the page you're looking at? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Fn 87 (7-4) is cited to support several sentences about the MSR's power; I can see it covers the "five times" part of the paragraph but I don't see support for "needed only short range, enough to hand off the Sprint missiles. This led to an upgraded design with limited radiated power".
This appears to just be editing cruft, the "upgraded" is not supposed to be there. the statement that it had limited radiated power is a paraphrase of that page.
  • Fn 100 (6-13) is cited to support "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs consisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers. The reduction in size and complexity was the result of a number of studies on nuclear hardening, especially those carried out as part of Operation Prairie Flat in Alberta, where a 500-short-ton (450,000 kg) ball of TNT was constructed to simulate a nuclear explosion." I see mention of Prairie Flat, but not any of the other information.
Added details on Prairie Flat (and indirectly, Dial Pack). The rest is taken from the entirety of section 6, along with the image on I-40.

Can you do a pass to check that the footnotes all cover everything? I can do it, but it'll be faster if you do it and then I do a few more spotchecks. As it stands, because I've found several discrepancies, I'd have to check quite a few more if I do it myself, to be confident that everything is cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "cover everything" might mean. I worry that we're already way to detailed as it is, and that the article would be improved by removing half the inlines. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'm asking for is normal for an FA, but I'll ping Ian to get another opinion. Ian, can you look at a couple of these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule at FA-level, if spotchecks by a reviewer reveal anomalies then the onus is on the nominator -- who should be able to access relevant sources -- to go through the article and ensure that all material is fully supported, after which the reviewer would conduct further spotchecks that hopefully come up clean. The overall process can result in more dense referencing, or wording changes to eliminate unsupported material, but I think we have to regard accurate sourcing as no less important than professional-level prose and layout. Hope that helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've gone through the whole thing and changed a few and removed some I could no longer find. Should be good to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source spotcheck pass:

  • FN 115 (Bell Labs 6-13) supports "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned phased-array radar. The original MAR-I had been built into a strongly reinforced dome, but the later designs consisted of two half-pyramid shapes, with the transmitters in a smaller pyramid in front of the receivers." I don't see that in source. A similar description elsewhere is sourced to Piland p.1; perhaps that could be used.
  • FN 100 (Bell Labs I-38) supports "As it was expected that the Sprint and Zeus missiles would be ready in time for the MSR to be used with them, the decision was made to skip construction of an MSR at White Sands and build the first example at Kwajalein. The earlier Zeus system had taken up most of the available land on Kwajalein Island itself, so the missile launchers and MSR were to be built on Meck Island, about 20 miles (32 km) north. This site would host a complete MSR, allowing the Army to test both MAR-hosted (using MAR-II) and autonomous MSR deployments". I see part of this in the source, but there's no mention of Sprint and Zeus and skipping an MSR at White Sands. The source also doesn't support "had taken up most of the available land on Kwajalein... so ..." but I think that's OK; it's just a common sense deduction.
  • FN 102 -- OK.
  • FN 25 -- OK.
  • FN 108 -- OK.
  • FN 63 -- should this be 2-6, not 26? I think it must be as it supports the material, so I've changed it. However, I don't see support for "every city with a population over 100,000".
  • FN 58 -- OK.
  • FN 53 -- OK.
  • FN 16 -- OK.
  • FN 41 (Bell Labs 2-5) supports "The resulting machine would still be huge and expensive, so Nike-X centralized the battle control systems at their Defense Centers, consisting of a MAR and its associated underground Defense Center Data Processing System (DCDPS)." I don't see "huge and expensive" and the reasoning in the source, but I think that can go through as common sense again.
  • FN 38 -- OK.
  • FN 18 -- OK.

I can't check the offline sources, but this makes me much more confident. If you can fix the three points identified above, or show me how they're supported in the source, I think we're good to go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tardiness, I fell on ice on wednesday and my back blew out. I'll try to get all of these by Sunday. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that; you have my sympathy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I found the original source about the testing and MAR-II, but of course GB doesn't display the page in question so I just removed the thinner part. The shape is shown in the diagram on I-39 so we should be good there? The "huge and expensive" I simply removed, and the mention of skipping MSR at WS. I do recall reading that somewhere, almost certainly Leonard, but can no longer find it. The "most available land", that I can ref to an image, but is that worth it? So, I think that's it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "most available land" one is fine, and you removed one of the others, and I agree that the image on I-39 covers the "half-pyramind", so those are good. You missed one: "the baseline Nike-X deployment plans, with every city with a population over 100,000 being provided some level of defensive system". Looking on Google Books, I can't find anything not in snippet view, but this says on page 27: "There is also a third breakdown — a list of 130 cities of over 100,000 population that are not covered" which makes me wonder if in fact it was only a subset of cities over 100,000. Do you have a source that can settle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in question is from here, where they talk about deployments that cover large cities only, to mixed deployments, all the way to "essentially total city coverage, including a large number of SCD modules of various types". The 100,000 number is not in there, but I definitely recall reading that being the definition of "small city". This seems to be semi-confirmed in the source you found (which I had not seen) - go with both refs or are we SYNning too much in that case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "every major city", since that was the only hold-up to a support, and I've supported below. I don't think the source I found can be used to support it because it looks like it contradicts the specific number of 100,000, but of course I could only see snippets. If you get it and it provides clear support, or you have another source that uses that number, just add it back in. I don't think this is worth holding up the FAC for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)`[reply]
Agreed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nike-X/archive1&oldid=791874641"