Talk:Rhino tank/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

lead
  • lead should be a concise summary of all important elements of the article. Anything in the lead should be in the article, with added detail when appropriate
  • lead should set the context clearly and use links e.g. for World War II, the Allieds etc. and provide little context who they were, who they were fighting etc.
  • Should link the particlar "German" government the Allied forces where at war with.
  • Bocage - link isn't specific enough to explain what it means here. Hedges, forests, or what? Reader shouldn't have to read the link to try and figure it out.
  • when you "American" do you mean United States? Use of "American" is imprecise. Please go through the article and use another term.
  • "Initially the devices were manufactured in Normandy, - passive voice - who manufactured them?
  • "Manufacture was then shifted to the United Kingdom, and vehicles were modified before being shipped to France" - all passive voice. Who shifted them, who modified them then who shipped them to France. - confusing sentence
  • "While the devices have been credited with restoring battlefield mobility in the difficult terrain" - who credited them? not historians as they questioned their overall usage and tactical significance
  • Please go through article and rewrite sentences to active voice.

Background

  • This section should set the stage (background), not go immediately into detailed descriptions.
  • The body of the article should contain all the info in the lead. This section doesn't mention that this occurred in World War II, explain who the Allieds were, explain why they were fighting in France and why Normandy.
  • Goes into too much detail about Bocage , It's only necessary to describe what pertains to the article's subject - not what it doesn't pertain to.
  • Photo in article indicates hedgerows were the problem.
  • Again, should not loosely use terms like "Americans" and "Germans" - e.g. the German government today is not the same as the one then. "Americans" is a loose term without one fixed meaning.
  • who was the "Allied infantry" - countries involved.
  • please move photo down so it doesn't squeeze text.

Invention

  • XIX Corps - should explain this is a US corps, and US should be mentioned way before this in the article. (Reader shouldn't have to click links to under stand basic context
  • same with 79th Infantry Division - please give some context.
  • "A hedgecutter developed by the 79th Infantry Division was in operation by 5 July," - was that 1944?
  • quote: "Why don't we get some saw teeth and put them on the front of the tank and cut through these hedges?" all quotes should have citation immediately after
  • "A prototype tusk-like assembly was created by welding steel scrap" - more passive voice - who created it?
  • Culin, "an honest man" - needs citation immediately after

I'll stop here. The above are examples. If you go through the article, make the prose clear and concise, and carry through the examples I've given above to the whole article, it should be fine and pass GA.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    see examples above, e.g. use of "Americans", "German" etc.
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    see above, per lead, words to watch etc.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guideline
    uncited quote
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    focuses too closely on topic without providing context
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    see above regarding irrelevant detail about Bocage
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    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:
  • I emphasized on the nominators talk page that his input is desired so this article can reach GA status, in case he misunderstood.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the review. I will get working on the requested changes ASAP. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Will fail. No edits to article (except by me) since June 14 and none by the nominator since July 8. Please renomination whenever ready. Thanks. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)