The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

Check external links

Other types of review that review against the FA Criteria : 1, 2, 3, 4.

Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it fits all of the criteria and it is overall a very good article. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written, well cited, and therefore well within FA required parameters. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Well written, but the article is composet to two-long-labels and it needs more references. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: article has serious issues, especially criterion 1A and 1C
  • Article is extremely disorganized, which greatly impairs readability. Article talks about specifications (i.e. “Development” section really only discusses turret), then competition, then background (Sd.Kfz.165/1), then back to specifications. A logical, more-or-less chronological structure should be utilized (e.g. Background, Development, Specifications, etc).
    • Done
      • I've reorganized it to a more logical flow (e.g. what came first, why was it developed, what was developed, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary style: why is there a whole section on weight? How is the weight of other vehicles pertinent to discussion of the H10? Why is the weight of the H10 important to know?
    • Changed to Sub-Section, I thought it pertinent to mention something about the differences in weight from other countries' versions of self-propelled artillery. ~ Dreamy ^§ 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the weight had documented implications on design, usability, etc., I suppose I don’t see the relevance of such detail. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • German terms should be consistently italicized (e.g. Geschutzwagen). Also, regarding German terms, this vehicle should probably not be refered to as a tank. A tank, in my understanding of the English phrase, would be a vehicle with the PzKfW designation.
    • Done
  • Jargon: German abbreviations get complex and should be elaborated upon for English readers (e.g. leFH = leichte Feldhaubitze = Light field howitzer, Sd.Kfz. = Sonderkraftfahrzeug = Special purpose vehicle). I did this partially for leFH in the GA, but cleanup is needed (e.g. redundant definition in Turret and Sd.Kfz.165/1 Variant sections).
    • Done, I think. ~ Dreamy ^§ 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, not what I had in mind. Just want to explain the abbreviation once in full detail (see precursor section), so we can use the more convenient abbreviations later on. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect German: “weapon-carriers, or waffenträgers [sic]”, nouns are always capitalized and Waffenträger does not add an "s" to become plural.
    • Done
      • I'll double-check this, too, once rewrites/CE has been completed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better context is needed for Guderian. His name is just “thrown out there” (not even given first name). Use of “innovative” is a peacock term.
    • I used him as an example fore someone that wanted these to go forward, regardless of use of materials. I gave his first name, and removed the word “innovative”. ~ Dreamy ^§ 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Content is now clear, but I’m concerned about the Guderian statement. According to another source (Perret, Bryan (1999). Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945. Osprey Publishing, p. 12 ISBN 1855328437), “Guderian thought they were interesting, but hardly worth the disruption of tank production”. Did he support these or not? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m concerned about phrasing such as “perfect replacement”, “making it great for artillery and attached it was a good equivalent of the already proven Panzer IV tank” and “making it a good ammunition-carrier”. Even if these “goods” and “greats” are the wording used in the source, it seems unnecessary to the discussion (i.e. needless NPOV violation) and highly speculative, given that these did not advance beyond prototypes. These could have been horrible as artillery, for all we know.
    • Done for where I could, without removing whole sentences, not POV there anymore, I believe. ~ Dreamy ^§ 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, pending CE ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing information: e.g. why was the H10 production so disruptive, why did Guderian want to keep them?
    • It was disruptive because of the use of materials, that was already written in there. I have clarified it, I think. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, pending CE ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar issues, e.g. “interested was Guderian a military theorist” should be “interested was Guderian, a military theorist”
    • Done
      • Ok, pending CE ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources lack publisher and author information.
    • Which ones? ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All but number one. Every last one of them, actually ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources (per WP:V/WP:RS), http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/, http://afvdb.50megs.com/, http://www.onwar.com/, http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/
    • I can remove them, if that is what is wished. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed and replaced. ~ Dreamy ^§
      • Are these reliable?
        • http://www.panzerlexikon.de/ has a list of sources here; we need to source directly from those.
        • http://panzer.hit.bg/, http://www.balsi.de/ and http://www.battlefield.ru don’t appear to have any author or publisher information. How can we make a reliability determination without this information? http://panzer.hit.bg/, by the way, appears to be a verbatim copy of the Achtung Panzer site.
          • Yes, I realized that when I went back and checked all of my sites. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • http://www.wwiivehicles.com appears to be a fan/hobby site.
        • http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/ appears to be a personal site for Vincent Bourguignon
  • I know we’ve been over the legitimacy of the images before, but I won’t be totally comfortable with them until the all the steps at WP:COPYREQ have been taken.
    • I am trying to find all of this, please be patient. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No hurry, this one isn't a deal breaker. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect I have more concerns, too, but these will give you a start. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any progress on the reference issues? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the moment. I agree with ЭLСОВВОLД on most points. I am sorry I didn't get round to it at the A-Class review. The prose is a bit choppy in places with a copyedit really needed. I would only copyedit it though once the chronology is sorted out. It jumps around a bit and needs specific sections that don't wander out. I also wonder how comprehensive it is, the article seems quite short, though I am no expert on tanks. If others say it is comprehensive then it is. There are also reference issues with author and publisher needing to be listed. So, good work, just needs quite a bit of refining to be FA. Woody (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like to copy-edit it now? I have done a lot, I think. ~ Dreamy ^§ 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given it a copyedit, you need to check the facts. There was a lot of redundancy in places, especially the cancellation section. You need to make sure that all of the weights in the weight section use {{convert}} (or do it manually). I also agree with Elcobbala that there are a few too many abbreviations in there.
    • I have removed most of the see also section as it just contained duplicate links. I will give it another run-through tommorrow. Woody (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely written, and well cited. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, mostly sourcing issues:
  • Concur with elcobbola that the Reference section needs serious attention - cannot support in its current condition.
  • General citation comment - unless a statement is likely to be challenged, it really does not require more than one citation. Statements in the lead should not require citations unless they are really controversial, because the information should be repeated and cited later in the article. The first sentence has four citations!
  • The organization is a little confusing.. wouldn't Precursor be part of History?
  • "The design phase of the Heuschrecke began in 1942, when Krupp began designing..." Redundant use of "design".
  • Avoid beginning sentences with the word "this" referring to a previous concept: "This was because it possessed thicker armour..." Restate the concept you are talking about.
  • "The Heuschrecke consisted of a welded steel hull, with a width ranging from 10 to 25 millimeters..." Surely you mean thickness?
  • Again, are four citations necessary for the tank weighing 23 tonnes? Unless this is the most hotly contested topic since global warming, one will suffice.
  • I'm unclear how the Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig "competed" with the Krupp.. were they competing for the government contract?
  • In the caption of Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig photo, you call it a Heuschrecke 10. However, the whole setup of this article indicates that the Krupp tank was the Heuschrecke 10, like a model name. Does this mean that Heuschrecke 10 actually refers to a class of tank? If so, shouldn't the article be more balanced in its coverage? The whole thing is about the Krupp design with the Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig mentioned at the bottom. --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.