Talk:28 cm SK L/40 "Bruno"/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Assuming a best can do effort
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
What the heck I will try my best MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Check the dashing in the infobox please. I believe dates should not use the — but rather the –.
- Check consistency of the citations please. In some instances you use author and page and in author instances you present the full reference. I'm a fan of uniformity.
- "Miller, p. 758, although the Battery isn't covered explicitly" this is a footnote, can you split citations from notes?
- Can you add a footnote (at least for me) to explain what m. Bdz. u. Kz. actually stands for in German
- Do we know where the name "Bruno" comes from? It is not explained in the article. On a German ship, at least on Bismarck, the two forward turrets were Anton and Bruno. The aft turrets were Caesar and Dora.
- You translate Matrosen Artillerie Regiment with "Naval Artillery Regiment" I believe a more litteral translation is "Sailor Artillery Regiment".
- What is known about production and costs?
- How many men did it take to operate the gun?
- The source Herbert Jäger is not used.
All of the railroad guns had names; I don't know where they came from. I don't know how many guns were made for the Panzerschiffe, nor the costs of the conversion into RR guns. All of my sources focus on the technical aspects of the guns. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will ask for a second opinion. I feel unsure if this meets the "all major aspects" criteria. The article focusses almost exclusively on the technical elements of the weapon. We don't know the namesake. It does not address cost of production and time of production. The tactical usefulness of the weapon is also not well covered. The reader only gets partial insight on how it was embedded into a strategic offensive or defensive concept. The reader is also not well informed on how the weapon was operated (crew size, what protection such as aerial or ground was required, etc.) MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- G'day, Sturm and MisterBee, I hope you don't mind me offering my opinion. Essentially, I think it comes down to this question: do we know if such information is available? If it is, then some of it should probably should be covered for an article at GA level. Certainly, I'm inclined to agree that the article should discuss the crewing aspect, even if briefly (a sentence). I'm not an expert on this type of topic, though, so I can't really comment with authority. I wonder if German Artillery of World War One by Jager might have this sort of information. Is there any possibility of either of you obtaining this source? I've looked for it here in Adelaide but the closest book to me is in Melbourne, which is too far for me and unfortunately the SA State Library and the various local libraries here won't do inter-library loans from interstate. (There is a copy in Brisbane, and I know someone there who might be able to go have a look, but it might be pushing the relationship a bit too far.) In relation to the rest of the article, I have a couple of suggestions. Firstly, I wonder if "Design and history" section should be split. A stand alone design section could then discuss the details such as the weight, length, calibre etc. which are currently in the infobox, but not in the prose. Also I wonder if the "history" part of "Design and history" section shouldn't really be presented as "Development history". Finally, the designer and developer (Krupp) which is mentioned in the infobox, doesn't appear to be in the body and although the infobox says 22-24 built, I couldn't find information clearly available in the prose (sorry if I missed it). Just some thoughts, please let me know what you think. Apologies for the long post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, Rupert. I have Jaeger's book, but I'm not at home to refer to it and won't be for a few days until after christmas. However, I'm not optimistic about finding crew info in the book, I was greatly disappointed by it. I'll follow your other recommendations as much as I can while I'm away from my library.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Questions: So is the consensus that we acknowledge that some vital bits of information is missing in the article? However due to lack sources, lack of knowledge about sources, or lack of access to sources we promote the article in believe of good faith that this article now reflects the "best can do"! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying. I can add more information once I get back home, I think, but we may have hit the limit on the sources since I've got books in three languages that don't cover what you'd like to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was unsure about what the next steps are. I understand now that the review is practically "on hold" for now until you get home. I don't want to be perceived as a gating factor to GA. So "what I want to see" is irrelevant to what level of standard you concider acceptable for GA. If you still feel comfortable with the article now, after I raised a few questions, I have no personal problem with promoting it to GA. I just want confirmation from a second reviewer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- G'day, I'm prepared to accept that Sturm has done his homework, so the article probably represents the sum of the information that is out there on the topic, so there shouldn't be any problem with promoting it, IMO. My suggestions about structure were more aimed at an A-class or higher level. Apologies if I caused any confusion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. My concerns are documented here, I will promote the article now. Cheers and Season Greetings! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, same to you both. Take care, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. My concerns are documented here, I will promote the article now. Cheers and Season Greetings! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- G'day, I'm prepared to accept that Sturm has done his homework, so the article probably represents the sum of the information that is out there on the topic, so there shouldn't be any problem with promoting it, IMO. My suggestions about structure were more aimed at an A-class or higher level. Apologies if I caused any confusion. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was unsure about what the next steps are. I understand now that the review is practically "on hold" for now until you get home. I don't want to be perceived as a gating factor to GA. So "what I want to see" is irrelevant to what level of standard you concider acceptable for GA. If you still feel comfortable with the article now, after I raised a few questions, I have no personal problem with promoting it to GA. I just want confirmation from a second reviewer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're saying. I can add more information once I get back home, I think, but we may have hit the limit on the sources since I've got books in three languages that don't cover what you'd like to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Questions: So is the consensus that we acknowledge that some vital bits of information is missing in the article? However due to lack sources, lack of knowledge about sources, or lack of access to sources we promote the article in believe of good faith that this article now reflects the "best can do"! MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments, Rupert. I have Jaeger's book, but I'm not at home to refer to it and won't be for a few days until after christmas. However, I'm not optimistic about finding crew info in the book, I was greatly disappointed by it. I'll follow your other recommendations as much as I can while I'm away from my library.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- G'day, Sturm and MisterBee, I hope you don't mind me offering my opinion. Essentially, I think it comes down to this question: do we know if such information is available? If it is, then some of it should probably should be covered for an article at GA level. Certainly, I'm inclined to agree that the article should discuss the crewing aspect, even if briefly (a sentence). I'm not an expert on this type of topic, though, so I can't really comment with authority. I wonder if German Artillery of World War One by Jager might have this sort of information. Is there any possibility of either of you obtaining this source? I've looked for it here in Adelaide but the closest book to me is in Melbourne, which is too far for me and unfortunately the SA State Library and the various local libraries here won't do inter-library loans from interstate. (There is a copy in Brisbane, and I know someone there who might be able to go have a look, but it might be pushing the relationship a bit too far.) In relation to the rest of the article, I have a couple of suggestions. Firstly, I wonder if "Design and history" section should be split. A stand alone design section could then discuss the details such as the weight, length, calibre etc. which are currently in the infobox, but not in the prose. Also I wonder if the "history" part of "Design and history" section shouldn't really be presented as "Development history". Finally, the designer and developer (Krupp) which is mentioned in the infobox, doesn't appear to be in the body and although the infobox says 22-24 built, I couldn't find information clearly available in the prose (sorry if I missed it). Just some thoughts, please let me know what you think. Apologies for the long post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)