Wikipedia:Peer review/United States military nuclear incident terminology/archive1

Nuclear accident terminology[edit]

You know the kind of thing - 'broken arrow', 'rogue spear', 'empty quiver', beloved of Tom Clancy novels. A couple of years ago I wrote an article on the same topic for Everything2, and did a lot of frustrating internet research. I came to the conclusion that most of the supposed definitions are either wrong, inappropriate, or fictional, or require a lot of qualification. I have included my Everything2 article in the talk page. I believe that, with a bit of work, it could be pasted over the existing page, but I'd rather have input from others - particularly high-level US nuclear scientists, or anybody who can shed light on this topic, because I have no specialist knowledge on the topic at all. I think it would be fantastic if Wikipedia could become a single, definitive, authoritative source for this information.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your article seems better than the current version, but I don't like the title at all: even conspiracy theorists would have to admit that most nuclear accidents are not the fault of the US Navy! There is an international scale of seriousness somewhere, but I can't find it for the moment (otherwise I would do the edit myself). See also Windscale fire, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl accident, Goiânia accident. Physchim62 21:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "US military nuclear accident terminology" would be a better title, especially because it would leave the article open for further expansion (I'm sure it's a huge topic).-Ashley Pomeroy 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]