Talk:Future Combat Systems Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Marketing Slant 2 Not All The Articles... 3 Insufficient Context 4 Questionable context

[edit] Marketing Slant

Sounds like the author copied the contractor's marketing brochure for this system. I find most of the verbiage to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The article should be re-written to include specifications, dimensions, capabilities, and other information appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are plenty of good military entries that can be referenced. Phrases such as "provides unparalleled responsiveness" and "Vastly improved handling" are purely subjective and should be removed.

Agreed, but because this vehicle is still in the concept development phase and only recently had its System Functional Review, there are really no specifications available yet at the low level you want. There are only requirements, and currently those are "For Official Use Only" and not for public release. Amatulic 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammatically, the entry mixes present and future tense. Does the system exist or not? If so then the tense should be present ("provides") otherwise it should be future (will provide).

Suggest that this comment be applied to the entire Future Combat Systems entry, and it's subordinate articles. The positive slant is unjustified, and the mixed tense is confusing.

[edit] Not All The Articles...

Please limit your comment to the manned ground vehicles. I have been making small contributions to some of the other systems (UAV Class IV, MULE, SUGV, NLOS-LS) and do not feel these comments apply.

[edit] Insufficient Context

When I was reading this article I couldn't even tell what nationality this project was made for until I read all the way to the bottom. Please add something in the first few sentences that shows it's relationship with the United States, the U.S. Army, or whatever it is. Thanks, Ultor Solis 13:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable context

This article does not explain by a word what is ment by non-ls. After all, just the concept of mortar is that the target is not in sight. Also, there is no reference to brochure ripped. Orsanthes 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)