Talk:vz. 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

Should there be any discussion on the previous model the was made at BRNO the 98-22?

Perhaps in its own article. This one is about the Vz24 Kriegaffe 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Production[edit]

The article states: "The vz. 24 was produced in Brno and Považská Bystrica (from 1938-1942)." It is unclear if that were the only two production sites, or if it was produced there only at that time etc. While i have a E1-1936 in my safe ... i consider it an additional information regarding only those two productions sites. So maybe the sentence should be: "From 1938-1942 the vz. 24 was produced (also? only?) in Brno and Považská Bystrica." --78.55.64.236 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no sources available right now, but as far as I can recall, it seems that the vz. 24 production in Považská Bystrica only started in 1938 (or 1937, according to some sources), when new Zbrojovka Brno factory was built here, and production in Brno started in 1924. These were the only two vz. 24 production sites in pre-war Czechoslovakia. (VTLÚ code denotes place of Army acceptance, not place of manufacture.) --ja_62 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

I have moved (and I have done so several times before) this page to vz. 24, with space between vz. and 24, which is correct form of designation Czech and Slovak arms models. I don't know why Echo5charlie's reference Military Mausers of the World (which is not correctly cited source, while he did not cited author's name etc.) uses wrong form, but probably it's due to author's bad knowledge of Czechoslovak designation system and therefore I strongly recommend the Czech-language source, which is one of the most renown works about Czechoslovak rifles and their designation. Perhaps even, in the worst eventuality, we may move the page to vzor 24, which is more official way of designation, and remains away the problem "space between dot and number yes/no". --ja_62 12:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a VTLU code?[edit]

I think it would be ideal to define a "VTLU code" Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article there is sentence "The VTLU code was an inspection and acceptance stamp" which is quite clear, I suppose. VTLU is Czech acronym for "Vojenský technický a letecký ústav" - (Military technical and aviation institute) which was responsible for inscpecting and acceptance marking of weapons aquired for Czechoslovak army, but I personally don't see the point to explain this to detail, I think that explaining different codes in different acceptance locations (E1 to E8) in the article is quite enough . --ja_62 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, you've (and others) have written a great article. My point is the article states "The VTLU code was an inspection and acceptance stamp" and as a reader my natural question is "who did the inspection and who accepted it?" and which lead me to ask "what or who is the VTLU"
You did a nice job on the talk page here answering those questions I had. I think the article would be improved if you added a sentence or two and clarify that for the reader. It's not a long article and it's very informative.
I own a few BRNO rifles which bear some of these proof (E3) markings so as a reader I was highly interested in qualifying what the VTLU is/was. And thanks for that answer BTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made only minor edits in terminoloy etc., my contribution to the article is not so important. In case of VTLU acronym explanation - I'll take some time to think out how to make some notice about VTLU code meaning, while the article is still quite short, and I'd found it superfluous to write too long explanation of this detail (in comparison to the whole length of the article).---ja_62 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice improvement, Ja 62. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Postwar production[edit]

Production of G 24 ended in 1942, postwar Czechoslovakia used wartime Kar 98ks and newly produced them under army designation vz. 98N. Production of vz. 24 was not renewed. Many parts were not interchangeable, which was case for cessation of G 24 production in 1942. --ja_62 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vz. 24/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


I'll take a look at this one, comments to follow in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Zawed. This is my first foray into military firearm type articles, so there might well be a learning process. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of this be (Czech word for rifle) vz. 24 to disambiguate the title, much like Pistole vz. 24? The current title simply means Model 24 and could apply to many things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the rifles are ever referred to that way - or at least they're not in any of the sources I've come across. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

  • The 1948 Arab-Israeli War is listed here but not mentioned in article body
    • Removed
  • Manufacturer should be Brno Arms Works for consistency with article body (although the link in the article body actually goes to the name in the infobox)
    • Good idea
  • Rate of fire and muzzle velocity needs a cite as not mentioned in text
    • Removed these as well - none of the sources I have cover either

Lead

  • A few things in the lead are not actually mentioned in the article body, specifically: "...considered more handy than the 150 mm (5.9") -longer Gewehr 98. The carbine followed a similar trend in weapon design at the time, that a short rifle gave away little in ballistic efficiency at combat ranges, but was easier to handle on account of its shorter length and lighter weight."
    • I'll have to look at a couple of sources I don't have on hand at the moment for this.
      • I did as much digging as I think I'll be able to do in a reasonable amount of time, and I can't find a source for the claim about "ballistic efficiency at combat ranges", so I've removed that line. Perhaps they consider it as something of a WP:BLUE issue, but the only considerations the sources I've examined discussed were about increased muzzle flash and recoil with the shorter rifles (which is what led to the cancellation of the original Karabiner 98As in 1908. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Close, repeated use of "captured" in this sentence: "Lithuanian vz. 24s, which had been captured during the German invasion in 1941, were later captured by Soviet forces,...", suggest rephrasing.
    • Changed the second "captured" to "seized"

Development and service with the Czechoslovak Army

  • Redlink vz. 23?
    • Done
  • "It resembled the German Karabiner 98k, which it predated by more than a decade.": Isn't it more a case of the 98k resembling the vz. 24?
    • Sure, but the K98k is a much more well-known rifle - any kid who plays WWII video games knows about the K98k, but the vz. 24 is a fairly obscure rifle.

Description

  • You've provided conversions, most are imperial to metric, but there are a few metric to imperial (including in infobox). Suggest selecting one or the other for consistency.
    • Converted all to metric - probably makes for sense for a European rifle anyway.
  • link pistol grip, cleaning rod
    • Done

Export and foreign combat employment

  • There are two mentions of Bolivia having 101,000 vz. 24 rifles.
    • Good catch - that paragraph got rewritten a couple times and that got moved around (and apparently left where it was, too)
  • There are a few short sentences in the first paragraph of the section; suggest combining some of them, a bit like you have done in for Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
    • Good idea
  • Second paragraph - as noted in the lead, there is close repeated use of "captured".
    • Reworded
  • "...as well as during the Partisans fighting...": this doesn't read well. Perhaps: as well as being used by the partisans fighting
    • Sometimes you read things you wrote and think "how did that happen - how about "during the Partisans' insurgency..."?
  • Include the text "No. 1 Mk. III" as part of the link to Lee-Enfield.
    • Done
  • I'm not certain but it seems Francoist-Nationalist is more common than Franquist-Nationalist so perhaps refer to the former?
    • Works for me.
  • Better link Interarms
    • Done

German G24(t)

  • There is some overlap in content of the two paragraphs of this section. I think the first two sentences of the 2nd para should follow should follow the first sentence of the 1st para. The remaining part of the 2nd para could be integrated to follow on from the 2nd sentence of the 1st para, and the "In 1942" could be the start of a new para. Hope all makes sense!

Other stuff

  • No dupe links
  • No dab links
  • The sole external link checks out OK so all good there
  • Image tags check out OK - most of them are yours anyway!

Parsecboy, have done my initial passover. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Having reviewed the changes to the article, it is looking good, passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)