Talk:Centurion C-RAM

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

A fact from Centurion C-RAM appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Centurion C-RAM can fire 4500 rounds per minute?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Centurion C-RAM.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

C-RAM test firing at night

... that the Centurion C-RAM (pictured) can fire more than 4500 rounds per minute? Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/pdf/2110-factsheet-c-ram.pdf
- ALT1: ... that the American Centurion C-RAM (pictured) was developed during the Iraq war to shoot down mortar shells? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091231120809/http://defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news2105_c_ram.htm

- Reviewed: [[]]

Created by Geardona (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

(Ping me) Geardona (talk to me?) 04:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I've watchlisted the article's talk page and will review this when it's kept.--Laun chba ller 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a full review, but the article is currently a stub and fails the WP:DYKCOMPLETE criteria. One of the reasons it is at WP:MERGEPROP is because the topic of the article is already covered more thoroughly at Phalanx CIWS#Centurion C-RAM. I think we would need to see the article significantly expanded in order to feature it at DYK. If content is merged from the Phalanx CIWS to the Centurion C-RAM article, I would argue that this isn't even a "new article". And we would need to see a 5x expansion from the prose size of the original section on this topic in the Phalanx CIWS article to feature it at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, at the point it was nominated it was rated C-class, no opinion on the rating change. As for the newness, it was a new article (moved from sandbox) when I nominated it, and it seemed to me that would be acceptable as 'new' under DYK policy, I don't see anything about splits in the DYK criteria. Thank you, Geardona (talk to me?) 13:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding now that it has survived, I think that a split of an article (especially given that the content is completely different) should be considered new, as mot other notable articles are mentioned at other places. I am not sure, but plan on trying to expand it to GA levels in the future (summer break) so if it is not that would be ok with me.Geardona (talk to me?) 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Review needed. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I would review this, and I will do so in the morning.--Laun chba ller 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long enough, new enough. I can't see where in the source it says that the C-RAM was specifically developed to intercept mortar shells, although perhaps I'm being blind, and ALT0 is more interesting anyway. No maintenance templates deserved and QPQ unnecessary. I am not happy with that level of whitespace in the article, please do something about this, and I've just cleared out no fewer than seven typos, please verify there are no more. Also, "Ukraine has not acquired any units yet but is negotiating with the United States to receive them" will date, and should be attributed.--Laun chba ller 11:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Fixed typo stuff, embarrassed about that. That might not be the best source for it, I can get another one from the article if needed. Where specifically is there whitespace? Attributed and dated.Geardona (talk to me?) 16:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the right of the table, which I recommend converting to prose anyway, and above Experimental versions.--Laun chba ller 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona: That's a bit better, although I think each bullet point should have a cite. (Also, given that Army Recognition is on WP:RSP in red, what makes it reliable?)--Laun chba ller 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer:Thank you! Working on the whitespace issue, will fix that. As for the RSP thing, it is only really being used for basic facts, such as length width height and weight, other sources provide the rest. Would this be an acceptable use for it, as it only said that it was paid reporting on RSP. Either way, I suppose it would also work to try to find other sources first. Working on all this.

Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the source. Ping me when you want me to look at this again.--Laun chba ller 10:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

: @Launchballer: tried to ping in the edit summary, suppose that failed, sorry. I added the citations for the rest, (as this mostly is from the info box). It looks a little overkill at the moment, is there any suggestion to improve that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geardona (talk • contribs)

There shouldn't really be any references in the infobox whatsoever, although that isn't a DYK issue. If they're all from the same source, something as simple as "Source:[X]" could suffice, such as at Boyz Unlimited. (I am not a fan of WP:CLUMPs of references, at all, and if I had my druthers, sentences that genuinely need it would be forced into a note such as at Piri#Notes, but that is also not a DYK issue.) You do however need something for the Weight and Radar bullets.--Laun chba ller 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done, so let's roll.--Laun chba ller 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Centurion C-RAM" actually the name of the weapon?

Raytheon called it Centurion Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System in their press release. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, Centurion appears to be the common name, used in a couple of the other articles, but its actual name is the “Centurion Land-Based Phalanx Weapon system. Also called Centurion LBWs or Centurion C-RAM. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stub class

The body of the article is below 1500 characters, making this a clear stub. Plus there are enough gaps in content to make this questionably not even start class.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I did not think that way, but suggest merge it with the Phalanx_CIWS article. This mentions that multiple time but lacks links to there- that article has links to this one. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back. Article has NO details on what if anything is different than the Phalanx CIWS about a ship. In this case- add the truckbed to mount it on for transport, add the necessary generator. Nothing mentioned as to if anything changed from when aboard ship?- plus regretfully - if there are any differences- either classified or not authorized for release to public. Wfoj3 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to.

Now how build one… 2600:1702:5CD3:60B0:906:7F54:80F8:A7BD (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]