Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Complex

Globus radar issue

The article claims By 1995, the AN/FPS-129 HAVE STARE (Globus II) radar in Norway had been upgraded to "relay data to Cheyenne Mountain", which is problematic because this radar was just going operational in California in 1995 and didn't get moved to Norway until '98/'99. Sadly I do not have access to the issues of the Guardian that are provided as a source for this statement. Maybe some editor just added the "in Norway" part without realizing that it was still in Cali at the time? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fyrael I believe this was fixed by another editor (I believe) Tokeamour (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Uncited content

It looks like there's a trend to add uncited content, which I find is generally original research (or they would have added a source).

I removed content that is not cited here. If someone would like to research this information, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson I hope my contributions to the article helped! Tokeamour (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Article seems to be very mangled

I don't feel equipped to fix it but it's almost unreadable at present. One-hundred-suns (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

TBH, I agree, and am strongly considering reverting it back to prior to Tokeamour's edits based on this revision. I'm sorry that may cause a lot of wasted work, but the article has been completely mangled with broken English.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in Wikipedia (and I don't want to upset anyone) but I think something should be done, yes. The fact that it's so mangled is going to mean people don't trust what it says apart from anything else. Especially for an article which is going to get attention right now. One-hundred-suns (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester Should be fixed now, unless something could be edited. I apologize for the inconvenience. Tokeamour (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tokeamour I would like to underline that your recent efforts have improved the article by a lot. Since you are still doing edits, please give a note when you are considering the work done, because as of today, there are still some places with bad grammar that could be improved. Havrekaill (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Havrekaill Understood, if you see any, then you should also do it, yourself :) (don't take this as being rude) Tokeamour (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Havrekaill Also I will do it on my end to! Tokeamour (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Havrekaill Also thank you so much, I hope when people edit the article it won't be as confusing (hopefully) Tokeamour (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

the post war geopolitical map is nonsense ~2026-14076-96 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Original Tom Clancy quote

"Borstein didn’t expect to survive an attack. There was a whole regiment of Soviet SS-18 Mod 4s tasked to the destruction of this post and a few others. Instead of ten or more MIRVs, they carried a single twenty-five-megaton warhead whose only plausible military mission was to turn Cheyenne Mountain into Cheyenne Lake." (roughly page 595, "Sum of All Fears"). Buckshot06 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

For whatever reason, and Clancy literally announced in that very novel of his that he had obscured some nuclear weapons details, the Mod designation for the SS-18 Satan (now generally referred to as the R-36 (missile)) appears to be incorrect. The Mod 4 carried multiple reentry vehicles; in the early 1990s, the single heavy warhead variants were the Mod 1 and Mod 3. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tokeamour (talk · contribs) 03:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jcgaylor (talk · contribs) 04:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Could use some polishing across the article. There are many instances of disjointed sentence structure that hamper readability (e.g., "Which would in 1989 and into 2001 be managed by 1st Airborne Command Control Squadron at the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, and later would be renamed the 1st Space Control Squadron." and "During the end of World War II, and during the post–World War II, would lead to in 1957, at the start of the Cold War, the Soviet Union began it's atomic bomb project."). Others are incomplete sentences ("Leading to the introduction of thermonuclear weapons by the mid-1950s.") or begin with a pronoun in a disruptive manner ("Which would support the Aerospace Defense Center's operation of the North American Defense Command primary combat operations center.")	Fail
(b) (MoS)	employs awkward usage of "would be" rather than a simple past tense as advocated by the MOS.; One image lacks a caption; certain sections could beneft from being subdivided, such as the post-cold war section; some MOS:1STOCC violations with full names being used more than once and the abbreviations given in parentheses multiple times, such as NORAD	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Most sources passed a spot check, but there were some instances of a source failing to verify the claim to which it is cited. For example, the citation to the Imperial War Museum makes no mention of the Soviet's tsar bomb development in 1961. Likewise, the IBT source makes no mention of 15 service members receiving no face-to-face contact. Ensure that all citations verify the specific claims asserted.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Generally, yes. Does rely on some sources with a consensus of generally unreliable, such as the International Business Times and Atlas Obsura, though for rather mundane and non-explosive claims. Still, it would be better to provide citations to more reliable sources.	Fail
(c) (original research)	While some verifications failed, these appear to be more likely an oversight than original research. This appears to be a well-sourced article.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	copyvio check reveals no likely instances of a violation or plagiarism. Any instances are quoted and sourced correctly.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (focused)	generally passes, but the post-cold war section could use some narrowing in.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	pass except for the world map used in post-cold war section	Fail

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	This is a promising article, and with some corrections to these notes would be ready for GA status. I will place this on hold for seven days, following the WP:GAN/I#HOLD recommendation.

Discussion

Thankyou to the editors that started this GA review. The article actually doesn't seem to flow in chronological history order, and, really I do not believe that World War II actually merits mention here. I have tried to insert some text indicating that by the time the Soviets fielded heavyweight ICBMs that the complex would have almost certainly been destroyed, probably by multiple ultraheavyweight megaton missiles, not just the usual "double-tap" to make sure that one warhead got through if the other failed to arrive for some reason, but this probably needs to be better sourced.

I do not really believe that the term "America's Fortress" belongs in the lead. Kind regards and Happy New Year 2026!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 I have updated a majority of the top sections to meet the expectations I will now begin the history sections. Tokeamour (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for your edits Tokeamour!! Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Let me know when either of you feel the article is ready to be re-reviewed, and I'll take it off hold. Jcgaylor (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Buckshot06 Many thanks to yours! Tokeamour (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor please take it off hold and go ahead with the re-review. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor Same here Tokeamour (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Second review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Sentence structure has been improved, and other issues addressed.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	verb tense problems were addressed. Image caption added. Section trims achieved.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	sources pass a spot check	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	generally unreliable sources have been removed.	Pass
(c) (original research)	see (a)	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	copyvio check reveals no likely instances of a violation or plagiarism. Any instances are quoted and sourced correctly.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (focused)	offending section was sufficiently narrowed. Much better.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	offending image now has a caption	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This is a strong article, deserving of GA status. Congrats to those that contributed.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Near Colorado Springs, Colorado in United States

• ... that the Cheyenne Mountain Complex (entrance pictured), hidden inside Cheyenne Mountain, is the alternate command center for both the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and United States Northern Command?

• Source: https://militarybases.com/colorado/cheyenne-mountain/

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Tokeamour (talk) and Buckshot06 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Tokeamour (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC).

• Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is not needed. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Cheyenne Mountain Complex

I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to eventually have it nominated as a featured article. As of now, the article might need more work. If someone could do a detailed check on the article that would help the editors with improving the article.

Thanks, Tokeamour (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This hasn't had any activity in a while, and the nominator hasn't edited in a month, so I'm going to close this. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Tokeamour: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are working towards your first FAC promotion, I recommend getting a mentor that can comment in this PR. I also recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC now: this will build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help with understanding the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

metalicat

I've had a read through with the FAC criteria in mind. Whilst I find this subject pretty cool, I'm not a specialist in military history or Cold War infrastructure, so take my comments accordingly. I've focused on the things I think need addressing first — happy to come back for a closer look at prose, structure, and MOS once these are sorted.

Criterion 1a: well-written

The prose needs a copy-edit pass before FAC. The two most prominent issues:

There's a recurring construction where "During" is used with specific years or dates: "During 2008", "During 2003", "During August 3, 2011", "During 2015". In standard English these should be "In 2008", "In 2003", "On August 3, 2011", etc. I count at least five instances.

Several sentences don't parse or are fragments. For example:

• During 2003 the Ground-Based Mid-Course Defense (GMD) was contracted for Cheyenne Mountain, at Command Center operations to Peterson Space Force Base — I can't work out what the second half of this sentence is saying.

• Providing aid to the Aerospace Defense Center's operation of NORAD's primary combat operations center. — sentence fragment after the previous sentence about the support groups HQ.

• On the 40th anniversary of the Complex completion, then-Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, visited the complex on June 24, 2017 — if the complex became operational in February 1967, wouldn't June 2017 be the 50th anniversary?

Criterion 1c: well-researched

There are several {{Citation needed}} tags in the popular culture section (Terminator 3, Stargate Command broom closet, Call of Duty, Horizon Zero Dawn).

The DefenseDaily citation has title=title tbd — this needs the actual article title and the link is broken.

The TheLivingMoon.com source describes itself as a "mirror webpage of former 'Official Site'". I'd expect questions about whether a user-generated mirror meets WP:RS.

Criterion 2a: lead

The lead is quite narrow at present. It covers construction, 9/11, the 2008 relocation, and Peterson SFB, but doesn't mention the Cold War upgrade programmes, the false missile warnings of 1979–80, the physical layout, or the complex's cultural profile. For FAC the lead needs to summarise all major aspects of the article — I think it needs expanding to three or four paragraphs.

---

I'll leave the finer prose, structure, and MOS points for a second pass once the above is addressed. The article has clearly had a lot of work put into it and there's a solid foundation here. Metalicat (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)