Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox; all good
• Section 1;
  • Head of General Staff; what is the position presently called, link it
    • Fixed. The position was replaced with Chief of the Armed Forces, which was a newly-created position. I linked it to the "High command" section of Swiss Armed Forces. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Federal Military Department (EMD); I think it is FMD
    • "EMD" is the German abbreviation. We do this a lot with articles pertaining to Switzerland. Regardless, the correct title of the department at the time was the "Military Department," and I corrected that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Link uranium bomb
  • 60-100 kt; what is this kt, never mentioned before, also what is 60-100, range, if so use en dash
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • use {{convert}} for 2-3 km, also use en dash
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • use conversion template while mentioning units, here are the cases, and also abbreviate the units from second mention
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Swiss federal council is over linked
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • ten tons; also mention ten in numbers for consistency
    • 3,238 kilograms
    • 2,283 kilograms
    • 3 kilograms
    • 5,000 kilograms
    • sixty to one hundred kilotons
    • 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds)
    • 20 kilograms of plutonium
      • I believe I have fixed all these numbers and units. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Swiss Air Force Mirage III jet would have been able to carry nuclear bombs as far as Moscow; this awkward, as far as Moscow what? what is the reason
  • What is IAEA? The acronym is never mentioned before
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • less and less relevant; just "less relevant"
    • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Section 2; all good
• Scherrer's image doesn't have a date
  • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• 73.6% confidence, violation possible, this is a serious issue

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)