Talk:Sd.Kfz. 9

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sd.Kfz. 9/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

started --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   despite that it is well written, I have some questions. First, just fyi, I changed the lead so that the military used the h.t., not that it used itself (half tracks don't participate. They are inanimate, so people have to use them). Second, your explanation of its turning abilities, while no doubt accurate, left me wondering why it was designed in such a way. Do you know why? Was there an advantage to this? Third, you say the production model didn't differ from #2, and that #2 differed from #1 only in detail, but.... details? what it looked like? its color? the seats had no cushions in the production model? Third, I gather this vehicle remained more or less the same throughout the war. Yes? Except, presumably it received different paint for snowed terrain than desert terrain.

I don't know why the steering was designed the way it was; no source I know of goes into the engineering of the vehicle like that. Sometimes the details are all that's specified in the source and sometimes they're unimportant differences like 5 ventilation slits instead of 7, etc. You make a good point about the personification of the lead paragraph. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe all German halftracks shared this transmission design. The front wheels were not powered, yet the length of track was very long, so track assistance was needed for most turns. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Two coverage issues. First, this machine was developed in contravention of the Versailles restrictions, yes? So, how did this work? How was it hidden, was this done in the S.U., like some other military developments and training? Second, do we know what it was like to use? Are there some descriptions -- there MUST be some descriptions of what it was like to use it, to ride in it, or whatever.

No, it wasn't prohibited by the Versailles treaty. And I've read most of the German military memoirs of the war and nobody describes what one of these half-tracks was like to drive or anything. It wasn't exactly glamorous or anything so nobody's commented about it that I'm aware of.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   yes, but it is so neutral it is almost uninformative. What is the context of its development (see No. 3), and what did this mean?

See my response to No. 3.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   always a good thing not to have wars over something. ;)

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   they look suitable, Bundesarchiv photos are usually PD.

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a good article, no question. I'd like to see some material on how the soldiers described it, driving it, using it, or waiting for it to come and save their tank, etc. I'll put the article on hold for a week or two, and maybe you can enhance this?--Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, then perhaps explain in clearer terms what the steering means. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's fine to include the technical stuff, but do you understand it? If you do, tell the rest of us.

if it wasn't prohibited by the Versailles treaty, then perhaps a section on German disarmament, and rearmament, contextualizing the development in the broader picture. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The versailles treaty had been broken on a very significant scale before the FAMO started in production, and would not have been banned by it anyway, so I don't think it is relevant. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

nevertheless, at the end of reading this, I'm still left with "so what?" Tatra needs clarification, other than the lead to the disambiguation page. Which Tatra? -- the car company or the one that made rail stuff? Either could work on this. And I'm still left wondering how this thing actually moved (as well as the other one). Basically, this is not an article for someone who wants to learn about the vehicle, but for someone who already knows about the vehicle. Phrases / sentences that include "etc" ... well, what etc? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)