Talk:152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 3, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
July 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 13, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Possible improvements[edit]

Just a thought - what was this superceded by - was it the D-20 ? Megapixie 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not or... yes. D-20 has ballistic identical to ML-20 (and it was direct successor of ML-20), not D-1. I'll ask my Russian colleagues about it. LostArtilleryman 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

After Kirill Lokshin's suggestions I offer merge Summary and Description because the former part is a technical comparative analysis in fact. The last sentence of Summary IMHO is better incorporate into introduction. Also, Surviving pieces from my POV is better to move into introduction, not to Organization and employment - the material for Introduction is scarce. Agree with appending Production to the previous chapter and renaming the result as Development and production. What for Trivia, Item No. 1 and 2 is quite logical move to Ammunition, Item No. 3 will not have place, so it can be dropped (too much words to explain it sense in introduction) and for Item No. 4 I've no idea. IMHO, it is important enough but what the place can we find for it? LostArtilleryman 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with most of the suggestions. "Summary" and "trivia" can go, never liked these sections anyway :). "Production" can be converted into a subsection of "Development". But I don't like the idea of moving "surviving pieces" to the introduction, IMHO partial list of surviving guns is not important enough, it's essentially kind of "appendix", while the introduction should be an overview of major points of the article. I'd leave it as is. BTW, I've heard there is at least one D-1 in Israel, placed as a memorial piece somewhere in Kiryat Haim... didn't see it with my own eyes or any photos of it though... Bukvoed 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll do some work, which is not require high grammar knowledge. But what we can do for introduction? LostArtilleryman 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried to improve the introduction. I'm still not sure that the result is acceptable, though. And we still need some help from somebody with better english. Bukvoed 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the introduction is not bad as zero (and may be first) approximation. And I ask Megapixie to help once again for checking grammar. LostArtilleryman 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Review Comments for considering 152mm M1943 D-1 gun for 'Good Article' status[edit]

Firstly, I must say that this is one of the good articles on artillery weapons in Wikipedia that I have come across. It is well developed, with references, seems quite complete in its coverage and well-organised. This is how the article fares with respect to the Good article criteria:

  1. Well Written - I have carried out some language oriented copy-edits.
  2. Factually accurate & verifiable - Some of the points are listed below for your improvement.
  3. Broad in its coverage - Yes.
  4. Neutral - Yes.
  5. Stable - Yes.
  6. Images have acceptable copyright status - I am in the process of checking this. I'll give you feedback later on this.
Sorry, forgot to mention, images are Ok too.AshLin 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have been looking for an english overview, I am taking the liberty of correcting certain language aspects. I have changed all spellings to American style to maintain consistency. However, after doing that and improving the writing of the article, the following points need to be looked into: AshLin

Thanks a lot for copyedits. The article is essentially a translation from ruWiki, so some questions / remarks cannot be immediately addressed, but we will try to improve it as much as possible. Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Citation needed here -
The reasons for this decision are given by Russian military historian M. Svirin as: AshLin
Commented out the paragraph. We hardly need to describe these reasons for stopping the production of M-10 here in such a detail. I'll probably move some of the text to the article about M-10. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The lack of tractors cannot be a reason to stop producing a particular weapon, as its successors too would need a prime mover as they too are towed artillery weapons.

So I feel this reason should be removed and I have commented it out. AshLin

For Russian conditions it have a lot amount of sense, but the frase is itself ambigous. The tractors mean tracked heavy vehicles. After evacuation of Kharkov Plant No.183 the production of heavy prime movers for M-10 ceased (and was resumed after WW2) and remaining vehicles were attached to tow much heavier guns such as ML-20 or B-4. While D-1 is much more lighter and there was no need in heavy tracked mover, common US Studebaker 6x6 truck is quite enough. LostArtilleryman 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason seems valid. Production of M-10 was stopped in late in 1941, when RKKA was particularly short on vehicles; no immediate successor was introduced. The eventual successor, the D-1, was introduced only in 1943, after USSR received large number of lend-lease vehicles, was lighter (3,600 kg vs 4150 kg) so possibly somewhat less powerful prime movers could be used, and was employed at corps level instead of divisional (naturally, corps level units have better access to powerful prime movers). Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I understood it to be a wheeled vehicle like a truck. Please rephrase so that the context is understood and reintroduce. AshLin 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Commented out, see above. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where was Plant 352, when was it over-run? Similarly, where was Plant No 9 UZTM? AshLin
Uhm, thanks for the question. Plant no. 352 was located in Novocherkassk. Strictly speaking, it was not overrun in 1941, only evacuated following GKO decision no. 760 from 10 October 1941; there is also a decision no. 1226 form 1 February 1942 to transfer the salvaged equipment to Plant no. 221 in Stalingrad; so I guess the plant was evacuated by then (source: , ). The city itself held until July 1942. The no. 9 UZTM was located in Sverdlovsk, far out of German reach. I guess some rephrasing is needed. Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. May incorporate the locations by using appropriate language.AshLin 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Red Army rifle corps should be wikified and made into a stub. It has relevance to the development of Soviet artillery weapons during World War II besides its own relevance in the history of the Red Army. Also F. F. Petrov. AshLin
Perhaps one day... Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but if you have even just a stub someone may come and add some material to it. You are also more inclined to add some info passing by. Even oneline stub is better than nothing. I know this is not a guideline, but these actions really develop your wikiproject over time.AshLin 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Created a stub article about F. F. Petrov; linked "Red Army rifle corps" to Corps#Soviet Union. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The references must be given in full at the first place they are encountered in the wikitext. I have amended this. AshLin
Thanks. Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Which countries used the D-1 howitzer in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The gun was employed in Arab-Israeli Conflict and also in some conflicts in former republics of Soviet Union.[2] AshLin
As far as I know, the gun was not employed by IDF (at least not in any numbers). The article mentions that the gun is/was in Syrian service, so I guess it was used by Syria, possibly by other Arab states. There's a memorial piece somewhere in Israel, probably a captured one. Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The line in the introduction about the D-1 finding a place in computer games requires that a separate section (albeit a small one) be created for it. I have merged it in a newsection titled The D-1 howitzer in daily life and also merged it with the surviving pieces of D-1 artillery. AshLin
A previous reviewer (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#152_mm_howitzer_M1943_.28D-1.29) recommended to merge short sections and specifically the "Surviving pieces". Also, the title The D-1 howitzer in daily life just looks wrong for me... Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right, its clunky. Can you suggest a better title, or merge the survivng pieces with Employment? What about the computer references - let it remain in a short section - no problem.AshLin 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Merged the survivng pieces with Employment. Commented out the computer games paragraph - too short, the D-1 is not mentioned in the wikipedia articles about the games (also no other references so far), and as far as I understand the trend in "WikiProject Military history" is not to include "XYZ in games/books/movies)" unless the XYZ is a particularly prominent element of the respective games/books/movies. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The wikilinks about computer games need to be checked to see whether they explicitly mention the D-1. In case they dont mention it in the wiki, then we need to find web links which do so and add those also as a reference. AshLin
See above.
  • The 'ammunition' section needs an opening sentance mentioning the range of types of ammunition available for the D-1. I have added this. AshLin
Truth be told, I feel the section is OK... but I'll think about it again. Anyway, as far as I know most of these projectiles were not developed specifically for D-1, so some rephrasing is needed. Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
OK we may say the 'D-1 had the following kinds of ammunition...' or something like it. Go ahead and rephrase. I agree, the section is OK but its always better if a person can read on the first line itself what linds of ammuntion were available.AshLin 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Rephrased the opening sentence. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikify the various types of ammuntion. AshLin
You mean shell designations should be converted to wikilinks ? Bukvoed 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I feel they may be linked to articles on generic ammunition, say HE to to go now, sorry, you can find articles on amn like ..
Done. Bukvoed 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please drop me a line on my talk page when the improvements are done. I shall be reviewing again 7 days hence. All the best. Regards, AshLin 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I feel that my comments have been addressed and accordingly I congratulate you and other contributing editors on this 'Good article'.AshLin 12:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
I have undertaken a copyedit to remove some grammar errors and the article is not too bad.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Although I am still passing the article, the inline citation have two serious problems that will probably result in this article being delisted in the not too distant future. Firstly none of th book sources provide page numbers, which makes them largely useless in determining the factual accuracy of the articles and secondly the citations are placed at the end of sections, not next to the facts they are meant to corroborate.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • 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):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)