Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) quick question |
AirplanePro (talk | contribs) →GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle: comment |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">'''Marcus'''</font>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Qwertyus'''</font>]] 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">'''Marcus'''</font>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Qwertyus'''</font>]] 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
====AirplanePro==== |
|||
Short comment: could you make the lead a little longer? I tagged the article. [[User:AirplanePro|<span style="color:lime">AirplanePro</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AirplanePro|<span style="color:red">Radio</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/AirplanePro|<span style="color:navy">Checklist</span>]]</sub> 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Jim Sweeney=== |
===Jim Sweeney=== |
||
Revision as of 05:31, 4 August 2010
I've been maintaining this article from the start and it will make a very good featured article one day. My questions are:
- is it to early to nominate it for Good article status.
- do the references need to be archived (like at webcite.org).
- Is it to early to split off the BAE/Northrop vehicle to its own article.
Marcus Qwertyus 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
AirplanePro
Short comment: could you make the lead a little longer? I tagged the article. AirplaneProRadioChecklist 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
- In answer to the GA yes the problem is that this is just a concept at the moment and the finial design has not been agreed. The same reply to splitting the article.
Some other points.
- The clarification tags need doing and theres one [citation needed] tag.
- The lede states its a fourth generation combat vehicle. What are the other three generations I have never heard of that term being used for IFV's.
- Link US Army at first use.
- It replaced the canceled XM1206 Infantry Carrier Vehicle. As the vehicle has yet to be ordered is this right ?
- The lede also states "Derivatives of the vehicle based on a common chassis—such as tanks" but tanks are not mentioned in the Role section.
- A lot of the article reads like a sales pitch:
- The IFV will be modular and networked and offer improved survivability
- The IFV would be operable with the current Battle Command control and communications suite but would gradually use a more revolutionary networked integration system.
- providing adaptive access points and connectivity
- The IFV would provide exportable electrical power, and battery charging capability for soldier systems - What systems ?
- Whats a non-civilian environment ?
At the moment I think it asks more questions than it answers, maybe after they pick which model/manafacturer they go with, there may be more to work with. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quick note Marcus maybe you can make it clear which programme will replace the Mounted Combat Vehicle though I well understand this is not part of the GCV IFV programme. Also NLOS-C replacement. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)