Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer IV/archive1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panzer IV[edit]

Promoted' --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I have spent the last three to four days rewriting this article, and it looks almost completely different and (in my opinion) is written to a much higher quality standard. I believe it meets the A-class criteria, although I am completely willing to quickly do prose-related edits (or any edits, really) to make it A-class if it currently does not meet the standards. JonCatalán (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of picky details:

From the first section: "Ideally, a panzer division would be composed of three medium companies..." - should this be battalion? I'm assuming so, but I don't want to change in case the originally plan was for a one-battalion division...
Various imperial measurements are given as, eg, (.97 in) - would it be better to put leading zeroes on these? They're quite easy to misread with the opening bracket there.
"...these new tracks also were designed to fit ice sprags" - what's a sprag? Is there something we can link to?
"These were used to train Italian crews while Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was disposed. They were recuperated by the Germans during the German occupation of Italy in mid-1943." - I'm not entirely sure what this means - should it be "deposed" (overthrown) and "reused" or "recaptured"? Shimgray | talk | 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I forgot to add that each division had two battalions.
I'll add in a zero where I can find these.
I wikilinked to sprag.
Just means that they were recaptured from the school. I don't have details available on what exactly happened, but that's how the source puts it. I'm assuming they were put into use by a company in Italy, but the source just mentions that they were recaptured.

Thanks. I hope that clarifies a few things. JonCatalán (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly does! We probably need a somewhat clearer overview of the divisional structure over time (I keep forgetting they only had one regiment), but that's a matter for panzer division... Shimgray | talk | 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just two issues not mentioned previously: The design section is full of jargon, especially the second paragraph made no sense at all to a non-expert, and "There was a bid to fit a Panther turret on a Panzer IV hull, carrying the longer 75-millimeter (2.95 in) L/70 tank gun. This confirmed that the chassis, by this time, was clearly overloaded." What exactly does this mean? The investigation into the proposal found this out? It needs to be clarified.

Fix those and it will be good. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify the sentence in your second point - I hope it makes a bit more sense now. In regards to the second paragraph of the first section, how do I suggest I simplify the terminology? I wikilinked to transmission, but I really can't rephrase things. JonCatalán (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good work on a detailed and interesting article. Cla68 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following comments:

The last sentence of the intro needs a rewrite, esp. the last phrase
"Ideally, the tank battalions of panzer division" -> "Ideally, the tank battalions of a panzer division"
Check tenses in Development, para. 1, sentence 4
Double-gears in Ausf. A-, sentence 2
Please fix "By the time production of the later models of Panzer IVs began a third factory had also begun to assemble the tank—Vomag in the city of Plauen."
"However, at the start of the war the Wehrmacht's armor composition was still mostly designed from obsolete Panzer Is and Panzer IIs—[57]the former had already been proven inferior to Soviet tanks, such as the T-26, during the Spanish Civil War." - designed is the wrong word here
"In specific, 1,445 Panzer Is and 1,223 Panzer IIs composed the bulk of Germany's armor." - in specific should be specifically.
"capable to penetrate German light tanks" - capable of penetrating. Please check the rest of Combat history for typos.

Good work, keep it up. Dhatfield (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most of it should be fixed. I will continue to re-read the article for other typos. How do you suggest rewriting the last sentence of the intro? Thanks again! JonCatalán (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.