Talk:Fahd (armored personnel carrier)

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military land vehicles task force Military science and technology task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force

I think it is a very early decission to delete this article. i have not finished the work yet. i am the one who started it so i should not remove the tag, but i ntend to expand the article, infact i was hoping i make it a featured article, so just wait if you have no thing to help. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Operators and service history

Is there sufficient info for each country to have it's own section?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Now there is :D One last pharaoh (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fahd Armored Personnel Carrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'm going to have to fail this article's GAN nomination. Here are my major concerns with the article:

• My main concern is a lack of referencing. There are entire sections without references, as well as major parts of other sections. This needs to be rectified before the article can pass GAN.
  • Y Done - One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• There should be no spaces between punctuation and refs, and no spaces between sucessive refs. So, refs should look like ".[5][6]", not ". [5] [6]"
  • Y Done - One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• The panorama picture in the Design characteristics section should probably be made into a thumb-sized one.
  • Checked - The picture is now removed due to copy right issues. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Text should not be sandwiched between images.
  • Pending - Most of the images have been deleted due to copy right issues. I have requested permission from a copyright holder for three images, and he has agree. I am just waiting for him to choose a license to upload them. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Is it necessary to have both the table and the country by country text breakdown in the Operators and service history section. I would suggest removing the table and moving any relevant, non duplicated information into the text. This is especially true because the table is missing so much information (so many fields are empty).
  • Checked - Information have been moved to the table, and tiny sections have been deleted. Also, countries with similar information have been merged into one row. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• It is probably not necessary to have a country-by-country breakdown for any countries other than Egypt and possibly Kuwait. It just makes for a lot of really tiny sections that could easily be combined under the current "Others" heading.
  • Y Done - Now, only Egypt's section is remaining. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comparable vehicles and See also sections should go before References section.
  • Y Done. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ref #2 (Mulcahy, Paul), which is heavily relied upon in this article, is probably not reliable. It appears to be a self-published website of a gentlemen who is publishing the information for use in a video game.
  • Y Done - Where ever possible, a reliable source is used with this one. Few cases where there is no other source to support the statement exist, like the unit price, and the Kuwaiti inventory in 1988, which in turns has a reliable source for the current inventory. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• All web references should include publisher and access date information. The publisher should be an individual or company, not a web domain (Howitzer.dk, for example).
  • Y Done. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an exhausive list - I have not checked prose, NPOV, image licensing, or the reliability of most of the references. This article has been significantly improved recently, but still has a ways to go before it is of GA status. Also, when and if you decide to renominate it, please nominate it under the War and military subsection of the History section, rather than under Miscellaneous. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, point out any remaining concern. Thank you. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be placing further comments on the talk page, since this review has been closed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

First of all, the vehicle does not have amphibious ability. The ability is not mentioned at in any of the references. So that should be mentioned as a weakness. In the comparison table, if we're going to mention the Fahd 280-30 IFV only, then we should remove the French VAB, as it has no real IFV version, as well as the Stryker ICV, since it's an APC, not an IFV. We should mention the Saudi Al-Fahd instead, since it is an IFV (see Paul Mulcahy pages). It must be pointed out that the Fahd is less capable at maneuvering obstacles because it has only four wheels, ie: the LAV-25 can cross a trench 2.5 m long, the Fahd can only cross a trench 0.8 m long. We should also point out that the Fahd lacks very advanced computer systems such as those on the BTR-90, the Stryker, and probably the Fuchs as well. My point is, if we're going to mention advantages, we should also mention drawbacks. In the end, I really don't agree with making comparisions with other vehicles. Well? Sherif9282 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have radically modified the table so that it represents only one variant of the Fahd, with comparison to other wheeled IFVs rather than APCs. I am not finished yet, but i am planning to make another one for the APC variant in comparison with other wheeled APCs. Just give me some more time, i have some things to do in the real life. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Al-Fahd is not included in the comparison, since the LAV-25 already represents it's concept like the case with the NZLAV. The table has the French VBCI representing NATO standard IFV, the BTR-90 for the Russian concept, the Type-92 for the Chinese one and so on. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sections are unreferenced, please add references when writing. Clach92 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the are. please point out any unreferenced section, so that i can deal with it. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there is Maneuverability, and the Armament sections, also some the Fahd vehicles mentioned at the bottom of the article.Clach92 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, all of the sections are referenced. --One last pharaoh (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures ?

I'm not so sure that you own these pictures that are presented here. Most of them will be deleted if they go for pfd. Please only put images that are in the public domain or are really yours. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the story with "you" and "your" ? I suppose that this is pointed out to me. On such basis, here is my respond: If there is some thing wrong with these pictures, do not worry the moderators know what they are doing. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't define you. I mean User:One last pharaoh who uploaded the pictures to wikicommons from Flickr. Here is my question: Do you own these pictures, made them yourself or are they in the public domain? Please specify your sources. I just want to know where these pictures came from so they can stay on wikicommons. These are great photos but I doubt you have the rights to upload them as CC-BY. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As i said, the moderators know what they are doing. I have uploaded images before, and some of them have been deleted, so if there is some thing wrong with these pictures, the admins would act sooner or later. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well please put pictures with a valid license, because the article has no illustrations or picture. Clach92 (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked a copy right holder for three pictures for permission and he agreed. the one thing remaining is that he chooses a license.One last pharaoh (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Clach92 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons: image of a Fahd APC. --High Contrast (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

I think the article's name should be "Fahd armored personnel carrier" or "Fahd (armored personnel carrier)"; as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Abdallah (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Special variant for Kuwait?

I noticed that Kuwaiti Fahds have huge devises over their roofs. are these air conditioning systems, or maybe for NBC protection? Any ideas? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook suggestions

I have suggested another hook for the article in the DYK template talk page:Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_26. If any one has another suggestion, this is the section for it. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Futher improvements

In response to the request on my talk page, here are a few more suggestions for improvement before the article is renominated at GAN:

• Bullet-pointed lists are discouraged per MOS, and there are quite a few of them. Some, if not all, of these should be integrated into the prose.
• Ref #2 (Mulcahy, Paul) is unreliable. That means that it should be completely removed. It can be easily removed from sections where the information is backed up by another reference. Information that is only sourced to this reference should be recited or removed.
• Ref #25 (Bjoern Clausen) is probably unreliable, because it is a self-published website, and also needs to be removed.
• Acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are used, with the acronym in parentheses. For example, in just the Design characteristics section there is IP, NBC and IR that are not explained.
• I would suggest having the issues with images worked out before you renominate the article.

I hope these suggestions help. Good luck with your next GA review. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Dana boomer. The web site of (Bjoer Clausen) is a self-published one, but it provides two pictures of an Iraqi destroyed Fahd. I have tried to add a note regarding that by simply adding that last part starting from "Note": <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.howitzer.dk/vehicles/iraq.htm|title=Iraqi equipment & vehicles|publisher=Bjoern Clausen |accessdate=2009-01-27 |Note=Two pictures of iraqi destroyed Fahd APCs.</ref> That turned out not to be the way to do so, in case there is any. So, this web site is used for it's two photographs. Regarding the aforementioned, do we still have to remove such source? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would Paul Mulcahy not constitute a reliable source? Sherif9282 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the he states in the main page:[1] that the information are for the game Twilight 2000, and asks reader not to ask him about the sources of such information, stating the following: Do not email me and ask me where you can get them!

Just to make it clear, i was not awar of that, when i used this source, and so were not other people who used it in this article, i believe. One last pharaoh (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken Dana Boomer. Mulcahy tells his readers that "nothing in his pages is for sale", and tells them not to ask him where they can be purchased from by saying Do not email me and ask me where you can get them! So basically he isn't denying his readers his sources of information. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But he also tells them that these information are for the game twilight 2000. Maybe his site contains many "real" information because it states some information mentioned by reliable sources, but it also contains game-related information. The problem is that the website is not providing sources for it's claims. For example, the LAV-25 is reliably sourced by Global security to be costing 900,000 US dollars a unit; The site we are talking about[2] estimates it's unit cost at 232,263 US dollars!

Also note that the armor value that site provides is given by numbers such as 4 or 9, while a real armor estimate would be measuring such value by for example 200 RHE, or 200mm at an angel of 60 degrees, and maybe even by stating that it is resistant to say 7.65mm AP rounds....some thing like that. I am not familiar with the game my self, but many games such as World in Conflict are very close to reality, but they (game makers) always keep enough distance from reality to "keep the game cool".

It is not a problem it self that the information are for a game, but there is no account for a reliable source packing them up. •| ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)