Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Heuschrecke 10/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
Close review |
Dreamafter (talk | contribs) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 17:59, 10 February 2008
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Prior nomination here.
I believe that this is ready for an A-Class marking. I have changed it since my last comment at 13 December 2007. I have added a reference, and have completed it I believe. Dreamafter Talk 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- Why is "Geschützwagen IV" in parenthasis in the opening paragraph? There doesn't seem to be a reason for it, although I do not know that for a fact.
Done - Can you provide a standard measurement for you metrically challenged audience? I know that 155 mm is roughly six inches, but I do not know what 105 mm equates to in inches. Done
- Would it be at all possible to put the armour information in the infobox? I grant you that would be a lot of work, but it has been done on our battleship artilces. Done
- It seems suprisingly short, although I will not object on the basis of length I do feel that there could be some unmentioned information. For example, where was the vehical to be produced (town would be good, factory would be better), how much would it have costed (projected cost would be ok), was it cancelled in favored of another vehical or some other reason, etc.
Doing...
- Why is "Geschützwagen IV" in parenthasis in the opening paragraph? There doesn't seem to be a reason for it, although I do not know that for a fact.
- Otherwise, it looks ok. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. A few sentences start with "it" and instead of having several one-paragraph sub-sections, they could be combined into "Development" and "Specifications" sections without the sub-headings. Cla68 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- Which sections should be merged, and why?
- Thanks for the help fixing it. It will be done, so that it can get A-Class. Dreamafter Talk 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. See reasons below. Bukvoed (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article IMHO would benefit from some reordering. Instead of the design section, which mixes development history with technical description, and one more technical section armament and propulsion, I'd like to see a section wholly dedicated to the development history and another with all the technical stuff.
- Done I think.
- Yes, it's better now, though I think more can be done. For example, I think I'd incorporate Armament and propulsion into design (simple merge ? subsection ?).
- Done
- Yes, it's better now, though I think more can be done. For example, I think I'd incorporate Armament and propulsion into design (simple merge ? subsection ?).
- I failed to understand what exactly do M60 and M104 AVLBs owe to the Heuschrecke rather than to WWII era bridgelayers such as Covenanter bridgelayer.
- It is for the modern equivalents, I will add the link above in to the article, as one from that time. Done
- That's how I understand the situation, please correct me if I am wrong. There were WWII era bridgelayers (Covenanter is just one example, there were bridgelayers based on Churchill, Pz IV, Sherman and possibly other chassis; at least some were developed earlier the the Heuschrecke). Then there is Heuschrecke, a WWII era SP howitzer fitted with a mechanism for lifting its turret; the mechanism may have been similar to these used on WWII era bridgelayers. Then there are modern bridgelayers, they are pretty direct descendants of WWII era bridgelayers and seemingly don't use any notable principle or technology that was specific for Heuschrecke. Now if I am right, I thick the section should simply be removed. If I am wrong and modern bridgelayers do owe somehing historically or technologically to Heuschrecke, I think you should be more specific.
- Done
- That's how I understand the situation, please correct me if I am wrong. There were WWII era bridgelayers (Covenanter is just one example, there were bridgelayers based on Churchill, Pz IV, Sherman and possibly other chassis; at least some were developed earlier the the Heuschrecke). Then there is Heuschrecke, a WWII era SP howitzer fitted with a mechanism for lifting its turret; the mechanism may have been similar to these used on WWII era bridgelayers. Then there are modern bridgelayers, they are pretty direct descendants of WWII era bridgelayers and seemingly don't use any notable principle or technology that was specific for Heuschrecke. Now if I am right, I thick the section should simply be removed. If I am wrong and modern bridgelayers do owe somehing historically or technologically to Heuschrecke, I think you should be more specific.
- It is for the modern equivalents, I will add the link above in to the article, as one from that time.
- Most of the sources are anonymous internet pages or other wikipedia articles. Some sources do not seem to support the footnoted text. E.g. the article from Achtung Panzer explicitly states that design never reached the production stage; the The Air and Missile Defense Journal article on PzIV (actually a copy from Wikipedia, so it's probably better idea to link directly to the source :)) does not even mention the competing Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle.
- I fail to understand what must be fixed here... Sorry...
- I'll try to be more specific. 1) The link to Panzer IV article in The Air and Missile Defense Journal link should be replaced with internal link to Panzer IV. Done 2) The aforementioned article serves as a source for the competition section about a Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle; however I failed to find any mention of that Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig vehicle in the article. Unless I missed something, the footnote should be removed. Done 3) If possible, try to locate better sources than anonymous web pages (I understand that it may not be trivial). May be sources listed in the fortunecity article ?
- They are already in the article, but this provides them in a concise form.
- I'll try to be more specific. 1) The link to Panzer IV article in The Air and Missile Defense Journal link should be replaced with internal link to Panzer IV.
- I fail to understand what must be fixed here... Sorry...
- Type: Prototype self-propelled gun or self-propelled Howitzer and Artillery (with three footnotes) - seems unnecessary long and confusing. IMHO Self-propelled howitzer would be enough.
- Done
- I still don't see why both howitzer and artillery are mentioned, After all, every howitzer is an artillery piece.
- Pardon? It is not like that now. At least I think it is...
- I still don't see why both howitzer and artillery are mentioned, After all, every howitzer is an artillery piece.
- I am not sure, but may be it would be better to move the armor layout to separate table?
- It was, but it was mentioned that that would just be to "tabley", so it was moved to the infobox.
- OK, ignore my remark.
- It was, but it was mentioned that that would just be to "tabley", so it was moved to the infobox.
- As mentioned above, the article is rather short. Perhaps more info can be added about development history or more technical info?
- Doing...
- It would be nice to have walkaround photos of the vehicle. And may be some historical photos too. I understand that I probably ask for too much, so please ignore this remark... unless you happen to have these photos...
- Done
- I think that the leading section is supposed to be a short overview of the important points of the article; any information that appears only in the leading section should be duplicated somewhere below.
- Like what information?
- I was somewhat confused by the sentence Design lasted from May 1943 to May 1944 and had reached the production stage. The dates seem to be in conflict with the developed by Krupp-Gruson in 1942 to 1943; production stage (I think) typically means that the vehicle entered mass production which this one didn't.
- Done I think.
- Of course my understanding of A-class criteria may be poor, my remarks may be too pedantic, my suggestions may be downright wrong et cetera. Just to give a few examples of good articles on similar topics, I personally like Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger and SU-152. The first one IMHO would easily pass an A-class review, the other two lack footnotes but otherwise seem OK.
- The article IMHO would benefit from some reordering. Instead of the design section, which mixes development history with technical description, and one more technical section armament and propulsion, I'd like to see a section wholly dedicated to the development history and another with all the technical stuff.
- Object I have to say that the Fortune City website does not meet RS and I also suspect that the George Parada website "Achtung Panzer" also appears to be an enthusiast's hobby site. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then a lot of articles should have the "Achtung Panzer" references removed. Dreamafter \*/ 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.