Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sd.Kfz. 10
- 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.
- Promoted -Eurocopter (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it just passed a GA review and I think it meets all the A-class requirements Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- The intro should detail the design and devlopment devlopment of the vehicle.
- "The Sd.Kfz. 10 was a half-track vehicle with front wheels and a tracked rear suspension." in the description section would read better as "The Sd.Kfz. 10 was a half-track vehicle with tired wheels at the front and a tracked rear suspension."
- "the end" is redundant in "Production may have continued after that, but definitely not after the end of 1943." in the Sd.Kfz. 10/1 section.
- I think "Issue and use" would be better renamed to "deployment and use". "Issue" gives the impression of small arms rather than vehicles.
Other than that nothing wrong with it. It's a brilliant article and I'm sure it will pass FA after this stuff is cleared up. Just be sure to improve the intro. :-)--Pattont/c 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I read your extract I'm wondering if I should re-write that entire section as a half-track is by definition a vehicle with front wheels and a tracked rear suspension so my current wording seems a bit a redundant. My leads are always weak, but I'll add in a sentence or two to recapitulate of the development history. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I'm just saying that "front wheels" doesn't soudn great here. "Wheels at the front" sounds better.--Pattont/c 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote that whole sentence. Check it out. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I'm just saying that "front wheels" doesn't soudn great here. "Wheels at the front" sounds better.--Pattont/c 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I read your extract I'm wondering if I should re-write that entire section as a half-track is by definition a vehicle with front wheels and a tracked rear suspension so my current wording seems a bit a redundant. My leads are always weak, but I'll add in a sentence or two to recapitulate of the development history. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there other sources that can be used? A-class is supposed to be based on WP:WIAFA and the "well researched" criteria there usually implies a wide variety of sources. At the moment about 75% of the citations are to the same thing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Jentz is the first detailed treatment of the vehicle that I'm aware of. All of the earlier literature are just surveys with only a few pages or less on the individual vehicles with an emphasis on its specifications. Even Spielberger, the former gold standard for German AFV histories, doesn't have any more than that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The Soviet Union, not Russia. First noticed in the lead, but shouldn't be anywhere.
- It could use a copyedit, the prose can be rather choppy.
- "the 3 May 1940 production plan mentions a total of 400 to be procured at rate of thirty per month and thereafter at ten per month." After what?
These shouldn't be too hard to resolve, but I would like to see it copyedited and share the concerns expressed above about the low number of sources. – Joe N 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up some of the text to make it flow better, but there are limits on what's possible given the nature of the subject.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support w/Comment(s) Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. No problems reported with the external links. I would ask that you make 100% sure that the German spelling is correct though, as checking that aspect of this nom is beyond my capabilities. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the disabigs. Will check the spellings, but one mistake was already caught by an alert editor. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.