Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rheinmetall 120 mm gun
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by User:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [1].
Rheinmetall 120 mm gun edit
- Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)
This article deals with the tank gun used by the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, amongst other thanks. It covers its development history, export history and the development of ammunition for it. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes http://www.army-technology.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, since they changed their layout and no longer include their sources on each page it's hard to prove, but their information comes straight from the manufacturer. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's no need to. I remember why that sentence even exists; it was done to allow the article to be included as a "Did You Know" (they needed an online source). I argued that the site wouldn't be considered reliable, but they added it regardless. The muzzle velocity is actually already mentioned in a sentence previous to that one, so I removed that sentence and the source altogether. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me get this straight, they insisted that you use an unreliable source merely because it's online, even though it's unreliable? Anyway, resolved, thanks Jon. And may I say how much your referencing and sourcing has improved in the last few FACs you've brought! It's a pleasure to see the vast improvement! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I have hopes of putting an article I'm about to work on through DYK, but I have a feeling that they will bring up the same requirement. I might have to link to this FAC. :D JonCatalán(Talk) 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me get this straight, they insisted that you use an unreliable source merely because it's online, even though it's unreliable? Anyway, resolved, thanks Jon. And may I say how much your referencing and sourcing has improved in the last few FACs you've brought! It's a pleasure to see the vast improvement! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's no need to. I remember why that sentence even exists; it was done to allow the article to be included as a "Did You Know" (they needed an online source). I argued that the site wouldn't be considered reliable, but they added it regardless. The muzzle velocity is actually already mentioned in a sentence previous to that one, so I removed that sentence and the source altogether. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, since they changed their layout and no longer include their sources on each page it's hard to prove, but their information comes straight from the manufacturer. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
A few points:
Linking in the lede has two links for South Korea, but none for LAHAT.- The two sentences in the last paragraph of the lede that both begin "The Israelis have also..."
- Krauss-Maffei should always have a hyphen, but appears here as two words.
Too many uses of "also": five uses in the lede, two uses in the penultimate paragraph, four "also"s in the last paragraph
- -- William Avery (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those can all be fixed very quickly; most already have. I will work through the text to remove instances of the word "also". According to their website], it's actually not spelled either way; they spell it KraussMaffei. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the word "also" has been removed or replaced throughout the text, leaving only a few instances of the word left where proper. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All resolved. William Avery (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Issues with Image:Korean Army K1A1 tank.jpg. Source does not match. Site and link to apparent permissions are entirely in Korean. I don't understand how GNU is claimed for this image.
- Source on Image:M829.jpg is a dead link. Without that source, it's not possible to determine the image is a work of the US military and in the public domain.
- I replaced the image of the round with Image:USARMY-M829A2.gif, which seems to be properly sourced. The image of the South Korean tank has been changed to Image:Merkava3dKasag001.jpg, which was uploaded by a user as his own photograph. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Supported after commenting during this article's A-Class review, and can find no points that need addressing, especially after the comments addressed above by the nominator. Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Also supported the article during it's A-Class review, and find it ready for being a featured article. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.