Talk:BMPT Terminator/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Title see below, but I suggest the article should be renamed "BMPT Terminator", as that appears to be its designation (see, for example, M247 Sergeant York).Y Lead suggest removing the Russian translation from the first sentence, it interrupts the flow and can be provided at the next mention, but see below for a suggested first sentenceY given the vehicle is referred to a the "Terminator" by the manufacturer, it appears to be part of its official name. Suggest the first sentence be changed to The BMPT Terminator is a post-Cold War (AFV) designed and manufactured by the Russian Uralvagonzavod company.Y the sources for the sentence This vehicle was designed for the unique role of protecting and supporting tanks and other AFVs to support tank and infantry operations in urban areas. do not support that text, there is no mention that it was specifically designed for an urban roleY unique role should be removed, per above, also, AFVs don't "thrive", they "survive".Y weapons aren't features. Suggest It is armed with four ...anti-tank missile launchers, two ... autocannons (add calibre), two ... grenade launchers (add calibre), and one ...machine gun (add calibre).Y suggest T-72 main battle tankY suggest The BMPT was designed based on combat experience gained during...Y the source used for the reference to Grozny doesn't actually mention Grozny, given the timeline in the source, I suggest a wider reference to the First Chechen WarY suggest A series of tank support combat vehicle prototypes were created by Uralvagonzavod prior to the final design of the BMPT. The Object 199 "Ramka" prototype was developed into the BMPT. given some time has passed since then, if it can't be updated, suggest As of late 2013, the only operator of the BMPT was Kazakhstan.Y Design history image – same deal for the Grozny caption, per the comment above, a reference to the First Chechen War would be more appropriate. cannot fully cope with manpower despite the latter having a high gun elevation is unintelligible. Manpower - are we talking about infantry? What would gun elevation have to do with that? In urban terrain or mountains? And if the BMP-2 has a good gun elevation, what was the reason it couldn't cope? Lack of armour? Not clear what the logic is here. lack of gun elevation does not make an "easy target", it makes it harder for an AFV to effectively engage targets in particular types of terrain, therefore making it more vulnerable to enemy weapon systems. This needs to be clarified. suggest designing prototypes for a new AFV concept, early prototypes being designated... unbold the Objects, same reason as in lead. suggest The main requirements for this new vehicle were potent anti-tank and anti-personnel weapon systems with high angles of fire, combined with armor equivalent to a MBT, including enhanced protection against hand-held rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). suggest While these losses could not be entirely blamed on vehicle design, it became clear that a dedicated anti-personnel fighting vehicle would be a valuable addition in an urban environment. Self-propelled anti-aircraft (AA) guns were pressed into service as a temporary solution in Chechnya. These vehicles were not well-armored and dis not possess the same obstacle-clearing capability as a MBT. suggest Several tank support fighting vehicle prototypes were produced prior to the BMPT Terminator, including Object 193A and Object 745. convert templates for calibres specify that both Kornet and Ataka are ATGWs suggest The production model of the BMPT was introduced in 2002, incorporating twin 30 mm autocannon, two independent 30 mm automatic grenade launchers, and four Ataka ATGM launchers. Mission This reads like an advert. The vehicle has never been used in combat, so much or all of the content is speculation or conceptual only. I suggest a minimal amount is incorporated into the Design history section, and the rest is discarded. Description the subsections are in a strange order, crew and life support being a matter of lesser importance. Suggest 1. Armament, 2. Protection, 3. Mobility then 4. Crew and life support. FCS should come under Armament. the AG-17Ds. Where are they mounted? I can't see any evidence in any of the photographs that indicate where they are? Hull or turret? two 30 mm 2A42 autocannons with 850 rounds there are several obvious plagiarisations from sources. For example, The protection of the BMPT is superior to most MBTs, as active and passive protection is used, and additional armor (the vehicle lacks a turret), is distributed to the hull of the vehicle. The BMPT is fitted with additional ERA, on the front and sides. and The torsion bar suspension on each side consists of six roadwheels with the idler at the front, drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers supporting the inside of the track only. are word-for-word plagiarisations from armyrecognition.com. This is of significant concern to me.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	there is nothing controversial in the lead, therefore no need for any citations there. All information in the lead should be reflected in the body of the article.Y citations are also unnecessary in the infobox, as all information should be in the body of the article. It also creates visual clutter.Y the title on the infobox should be the title of the article.Y Object 199 "Ramka" is clearly not an alternative name for the BMPT Terminator, so it should not be bolded.Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	there is one uncited para, and one uncited final sentence in the Design history section, and two uncited final sentences in the Description section. I'm going to AGF here, but normally that would enough for a quickfail. Needs to be remedied asap.Y
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	this is an area of considerable concern. The websites of the companies that produce components of the vehicle are ok for basic data, but there are a number of websites that do not appear to be WP:RS: bvtv.narod.ru appears to be a personal blog of an Andrei Tarasenko. Who is he, and what qualifications does he have? lenta.ru seems ok (for that time period at least, it is now apparently a propaganda tool of the Kremlin), but it is actually quoting Izvestia what was warfare.ru or .be? It appears to have been an arms sales company, but I can't work out its bonafides as a RS. airwar.ru at least lists a source for the information on the page (ie Karpenko and Ganin), but its bona fides aren't clear. Army Recognition Magazine does have an editorial board and journalists, so absent any obvious issues, it seems ok These days, RIA Novosti is pretty dubious, but won't be needed when the BMP-72 is removed gurkan.blogspot.ca is apparently the blog of a chap named Alexey Khlopotov, no idea why it might be considered reliable VPK seems ok. Novosti Kazakhstana seems ok. Bulletin of Mordovia quotes gurkan.blogspot.ca
	2c. it contains no original research.	see the point about "unique role" under criteria 1aY
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	has it been used in combat? If so, how did it go?Y engine and power is not covered in the text.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The inclusion of a section on the BMPT-72 Terminator II appears to be "mission creep". This vehicle has a number of differences in weight, dimensions, fire control, weapon systems, armor, engine options, and merits its own article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No negative press? Any criticisms?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OTRS checks not done
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Given the prose issues, some indications of plagiarism, and poor reliability of a considerable proportion of the sources, this article does not meet GA criteria at present. I am happy to look at the article again once all the above issues have been addressed, but it will need to be re-nominated.

Comments from the nominator

• 1a. Understood. I will be sure to change all of that.

• 1b. That will be fixed when the first round of the review is over.

• 2c. I will be sure to comply with the above. I tried my best to keep OR out of all this.

• 3a. The BMPT was never used in combat. A small number were fielded in a school district around 2005. The only operator is Kazakhstan who haven't fought any wars.

• 4. It's a vehicle that never saw combat and was never adopted by Russia, its lack of negativity isn't unusual. I only found one negative press release about it. I will add it after you finish going through all the major points in the criteria.