Talk:Heuschrecke 10/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


1:

  • Minor issues with lead, e.g. it does not summarize all topics (competion, armour and prototype) and “A prototype that was never put into action, multiple prototypes were designed and built, but none were put into the full production stage” borders on redundancy.

Y Done

  • Inconsistent use of American and “Queen’s” English, e.g. “Armour” is “Queen’s” and “utilize” is American. Language should be consistent.

Y Done

  • Possible weasel words, e.g. “it was then decided”.

Y Done

  • Grammar issues, e.g. the comma does not belong in “by placing it on Panzerkampfwagen IV, or Panzer IV, chassis and …” and the article needs commas to separate independent clauses.
  • I’m not sure “Waffenträger” is an appropriate title for the article. “Heuschrecke 10” is the actual designation; “Waffenträger” just describes functionality. Perhaps a move is in order?

Y Done

2:

  • Article relies solely on one source – Achtung Panzer. Additional sources are needed very badly. Further, as this article essentially reiterates the Achtung Panzer page, there may be copyright/plagiarism implications.
  • Per WP:NOTE, “a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. As a technical matter, this article may be eligible for speedy deletion with only one source and no assertion of notability/importance.

Y Done

3:

  • Article content is too minimal. At a minimum, elaboration is needed on the impetus for its design, intended application if produced (e.g. Atlantic Wall, Eastern Front, etc.), design process (e.g. why was chassis changed) and reason(s) it was not put into active service.
  • This was essentially a turret delivery vehicle that could carry ordinance once the turret had been deployed. Why, then, is there so little discussion about armament and so much about armor (something that, in the article’s current state, appears to be of minimal importance)?

Y Done

  • Do historians or contemporary figures (axis and/or allies) have opinions about the vehicle’s expected impact on the war effort, had it been utilized?
  • How is it that one of these survived, given the German desperation for materials late in the war? The PzKfW in the photo is at the United States Army Ordnance Museum. How did the US get their hands on one?

General:

  • I’ve placed the GA nomination on hold. If additional, reliable sources and significant additional content can be added promptly (7 days), the article will pass. Please let me know if there are questions or if my assistance is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is progressing; here are some follow-up comments:
  • Competition section needs rewording, e.g. article states the Heuschrecke “was built in competition with Krupp's Heuschrecke 10”. It was not built in competition with itself. Article states “Its overall performance was slightly better than that of Krupps' vehicle”. Heuschrecke is the Krupp vehicle; Alkett/Rhinemetall made the other one. Article needs to more clearly define and distinguish the two versions.

Y Done

  • “The turret could then be used…” is the first sentence of the “Design” paragraph. The “then” implies this sentence should be preceded by something.

Y Done

  • Change infobox header and image caption to reflect “Heuschrecke 10”, not Waffenträger.

Y Done

  • I reformatted the references and provided an additional link. Here are three more from which you should gather information:

Y Done

  • Add additional content from these sources and the two German sources already added and I believe content will be sufficient to pass.Y Done

Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost there – fix these things and we’ll wrap it up:
  • Competition section is still wrong. Krupp’s model was the Heuschrecke. The Rheinmetall was not given a “name”, but was called by its literal description (10.5cm leFH 18/40/2 auf Geschützwagen III/IV) – which is just 105mm light field howitzer on ordinance vehicle III/IV (we aren’t the most creative people). Also, the Rheinmetall version was the one with the superior performance (the Achtung Panzer site is not well written, so I can see the confusion).
  • Design section reads like a bunch of sentences have been thrown together, not written as a cohesive paragraph. Rephrase to make it a progressive and lucid thought (start by making the last sentence the first). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)