Talk:Wolf Armoured Vehicle

Failed GA

This article has failed GA, mainly because it lacks reliable sources to begin with.

• israeli-weapons.com is not a reliable source. There is no information on who is resposnible for this website and what their qualifications and credentials. I did a poke around the website and watched the history cartoon about the creation. Somehow a website with a slapstick cartoon with comments "ahahaha these Arabs are crazy" isn't a good sign at all
• The cites that are there need to be formatted correctly with publisher and dates and so forth in any case. SEe {{cite web}} for an example
• Many of the paragraphs in the article are one line and need expanding or merging into proper paragraphs
• Inline cites need to be placed directly after the punctuation, with no space.
• The article reads very POV and almost like a marketing pamphlet for armoured vehicles. Comments like "well-equipped with a double air conditioning system, comfortable seats and all the items a soldier might need." are POV, and words like well-equipped should simply be omitted.
• "the vehicle does not suffer from engine overheating or handling problems" - is this a promise that this vehicle is invulnerable to mechanical failure???
• Do not use contractions
• "The Israeli Ministry of Defense ordered 150 Wolf Armored Vehicles from Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd. [7] and Hatehof. " -> broken sentence
• Article lacks info about cost, tendering process of the vehicle and its history and evolution from past models.
• IDF should be wikilinked in the lead.
• Has this been used in military operations yet?

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Further comments on the assessment

• The article does assert notability (as it's in service the IDF, a highly notable military force), but the article at the moment doesn't assert that notability, through either its prose or its references. I seriously doubt, as did Blnguyen, whether the sources that are used, are reliable and independent. Currently, the majority of the sources pertain to either producers of the car, with the other to a independent source (to an extent).
• As said on my talk page (where I requested a second opinion) other editors have agreed that the content is minimal and should be expanded to help develop the article into a good article. For example, "It is a brand new concept vehicle that has no precedents. It is a combination of vehicles that have no relationship to each other, except for this vehicle". - It doesn't make sense, especially the last sentence. The reader would already seem to know it is a "brand new concept" from hints like..."It was created to provide a better handling, better protected version of the M113 (Bardelas)." and "This is currently in production, and is not currently used in any operations or wars." I'm sure you would be able to expand the article further any if there are no precedents or ancestors to the vehicle, how does it relate to other vehicles? I also saw, when editing the page last night, that the German military use it aswell, how come this is not mentioned? It would help develop the article, and show more notability, but as said, it already stands a chance of that as being a force in the IDF.
• As the above GA reviewer states, phrases like "well-equipped with a double air conditioning system, comfortable seats and all the items a soldier might need" are almost certainly POV, and should be removed as suggested, but this does not seem to be the case.
• The tone is rather vague and the article reads like a start-class article, not a GAC. For example, this setence (extracted from the last paragraph) "The doors are designed for a quick getaway." - There is no source provided, and it seems to come out of the blue. This line of enquiry is not developed and the reader, and certainly other editors, would become easily confused by the subject matter, and when finished, wouldn't be any the wiser. It may also be subject to what is known as original research, somethinsg a GA should not have. The nominator (who is also the main editor) should at least try to ascertain some memory to readers. After all, this is an encyclopedia so everyone should be able to read an article that uses a proportionate amount of verifiable sources, and leaves them with a little bit of knowledge.
• Another editor which gave me a third opinion on this article said, "Most of the original parts were kept, with the only notable changes being, the rear axle and tires. - original to what?" - and I agree. I can understand that it may be original to the the F-550 chassis, as explained in the preceeding sections, but this needs to be underlined, and yet again, developed.

Therefore, due to the substantial amounts of work needing to be done to the article, I am failing this article, and I am requesting a peer review which should hopefully bring not only other editors to the page, but also new ideas to help assert that notability. I would like to see this article be corrected inline with at least some of the comments in the next few days, to show that the nominator acknowledges the faults with the article. I am slightly surprised why the above GA review has been striked through, most of the issues there, still seem to be present. And finally, I wish you all the best with the article. Thank you. Regards, — Rudget _{Contributions} 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wolf Armoured Vehicles in service of the georgian Special Forces

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143605&page=2

Georgian Parliament in the Background