Talk:LT vz. 34/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The lead should be expanded to include highlights of the entire article, including a sentence or two on its description and development.

Fair enough.

1. 1. Link to some of the more obscure mechanical terms (sprocket, transmission, etc.) I know what these are, but the average person may not.

OK

1. 1. Avoid contractions, I see a few of them in the prose.

OK

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. The article needs to be more thoroughly sourced. Each sentence containing a measurment, date or specific number should be cited.

Show me where this is required to meet Wiki standards! Once per paragraph is enough for A and FA-class unless something is particularly controversial. See Sd.Kfz. 10

1. 1. Details in the infobox not covered in the prose (such as unit cost) should also be cited.

Again show me where this is required. Most infobox data isn't cited at all for A and FA-class articles. See Helgoland class battleship Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern here is the verifiability of the more obscure details. My interpretation of WP:BURDEN has been that material challenged or likely to be challenged includes details like the max speed of an LT vz. 34 tank, which the average person probably does not know. Of course, this is only my opinion and if there is a policy contrary to this that I do not know about I will gladly change my reviewing standards. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just try to err on the side of cauition. -Ed!^(talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into the issue I've seen that the majority of wiki reviewers seem to rule in favor of the minimum number of sources, per the article as it stands now. Therefore, I will pass it based on precedence and try to relax my reviews on articles of this type in the future. Sorry again for the delay, but I very commonly see complaints that articles with technical details are undersourced. Other than that, it passes the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. -—Ed!^(talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

5. Overall:

   On Hold until source and prose issues are resolved. -Ed!^(talk) 16:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)