Talk:Field Deployable Hydrolysis System

Military history: Technology / 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tone

This page reads entirely like a brochure for the system... I'm in sales, and this even sounds salesy to me. Please revise, it's hard to read this way. Fullgamut (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) fullgamut — fullgamut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can't buy one, so I'm not sure how it could be salesy. Toddst1 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But, it's just a format, when you list the positive attributes of something in a seemingly bullet form. "Can be field deployed in .. ", "is self-sufficient", ".. it dices, it slices!". Maybe it's because I'm around it so much that I'm hyper-sensitive -- Tom Waits has a great song called "Step Right Up" that parodies the style, highly recommended. Fullgamut (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I suspect you work for, or with ECBC. Their involvement and effort was referenced three times. Salesy. Whatever else it wasn't selling, you version was certainly selling ECBC's awesome development prowess. It's all about tone. I agree it's quite an achievement to develop something like this in 6 months -- that speaks for itself.. no need to sell us on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullgamut (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no connection whatsoever. I've been around a while and edited lots of stuff. If you look, I used one of their publications as a reference and as a US Govt agency, that's all in PD, so some of it is verbatim, hence their tone. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field Deployable Hydrolysis System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126110233/http://dtirp.dtra.mil:80/PDFS/cbw_news_FDHS_130923.pdf to http://dtirp.dtra.mil/PDFS/cbw_news_FDHS_130923.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]