Any comments appreciated! Currently reasonably quality and length, comparing well with similar articles outside Wikipedia. Wanted to get a feel for how this should progress before it could be submitted for a FA. TreveX^talk 16:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of minor issues: as done in WP:FOOTNOTE, the footnote generally appears without a space after the full stop. (ex. blah blah blah [1]. to blah blah blah.[1]). The remaining section stubs should be expanded, and the inline external links should also be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs with WP:CITE information. AndyZ _t 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your comments and also for your edits to the article! Aside from formatting or references and wikilinks etc, what do you think of the sections which are more fully developed, quality of prose and referencing etc? TreveX^talk 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Its definitely looking good, a few suggestions:

1. Either expand the stub sections or remove the stub notices — they make reading harder, and its kind of obvious the sections are stubs if they don't have much in them ;)
2. Personally I don't like the timeline, it looks odd in relation to the rest of the article. Could there be a better way of presenting the information?
3. Stub any red links in the article.
4. Improve the positioning of the images, preferably subheadings/headings should not be indented from the left due to image placement.
5. "it seems that the current Labour government will decide to replace Trident" — this kind of thing should really be removed or the speculation attributed to someone. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ;)
6. "The United Kingdom was the third country to test an independently developed nuclear weapon in October 1952." — this is kind of confusing, does it mean three countries tested nuclear weapons in Oct 1952?
7. "The UK is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 200 nuclear warheads." — reference or according to who or both.
8. Fix up the remainder of the links — see Trident section.

- FrancisTyers 01:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I looked at the article and thought there was quite a lot wrong with it. The principal reason I felt uneasy about it was that it seems to be much too politicised. I wouldn't want to get into a political battle about the content, but feel strongly that the article should be written in a less contentious style. Wilipedia is after all an encyclopaedia, not a political pamphlet. I'd resolved to have a go at it myself, but will need a little time, perhaps until end June to get it together. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to put a draft re-write into a sandbox. Contributions made in this field recently are WE.177, Yellow Sun, Blue Danube, Vulcan V-bomber, Ivy King(Talk pages). Regards. Brian.Burnell 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]