Talk:Véhicule Blindé Léger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is conducted as part of WikiProject Military History 2019 Backlog Bonzai. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is much to be desired in this article as it is now. Until the next week, so 5 October 2019, I'll suggest improvements to be made. If a response to this review is not made by the Nominee within three days' time, I will autofail this review and leave my comments here for their consideration. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prose of the article is very simplistic. In itself, that wouldn't be a problem, but it doesn't say much. I will elaborate in my comments. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to recognize my wording is quite poor. As you can see, my native language is French so I'm not able to be very eloquent in English. If you see some "very bad" wording, please let me know.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your remarks. They are really useful to improve this article.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

~~I recommend the re-naming of this section to "Design" or "Specification", and giving it a subsection called "Production".~~ The addition of more content about this vehicle's production there would be desirable. Another section, for variants of the VBL, could also exist under this "Design" section and there be most relevant. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the main title.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of details are desirable for the production? I do not have day per day records of production. And all the vehicles produced for export are listed in their respective sections.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of VBLs produced, for how many years it was produced, number of variants and the number of these produced, etc. I recommend reading other articles about military vehicles, especially these. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added much more info. However, I did not find the number of produced VBL per variant.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Doing... I will move I moved the variants section.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The French VBL programme started in 1978. Give me more background than this. Why did the French start this program? What were the requirements for the program and/or the French military? Was there any competition? –Vami

You are right, I have to explain this. I will do it in the next 7 days.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added much more info.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The first two sentences of the second paragraph should be combined. See: The VBL has two compartments: a motor bay, placed forward to protect the second compartment, which is for the crew.~~

Done thanks for the wording.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The recce [...] I am led to believe you meant "reconnaissance" here.~~

Not done See [1].--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could you link "Recce" to "Reconnaissance"?~~ –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Used "recce (reconnaissance)" to introduce "recce".--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Consider using Template:Convert for figures like horsepower or metric measurements. It'll give the prose a better technical flavor and more internationally legible.~~

Doing...--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Its autonomy [...] Replace "autonomy" with "range".~~

Done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~and can swim Vehicles do not swim.~~

The verb "swim" is used many times on that page but is at least inaccurate. Do you know the correct word? "move in water"?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use "drive", to create something like The VBL is fully amphibious and can drive at 5.4 km/h in water. –Vami

Done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combat history

This section should be renamed "Service history". This is the standard for articles on military land vehicles and weapons, and reflects that an item or vehicle can be useful in more situations than just combat. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is rather bare-bones. Whatever that would be relevant here should be added, such as prose references to (for example) use of captured VBLs by insurgents. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Le Petit Chat: Pinging you to bring this comment to your attention. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 11:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... working on it.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV:

Done Feel free to correct/comment my wording :) --Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Le Petit Chat and Vami IV: Just a remionder ping. It has been a month with not much action here or at the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot this article. I will do it in the next 12 hours.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That was the aim of the pings. AIRcorn (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Petit Chat, Vami IV, I see that Le Petit Chat expanded the Service history section later that day, Vami IV did some subsequent editing, and AustralianRupert has just done some copyediting. Where does the review stand now? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In progress. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 13:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, it's been over a month. If you don't have time for this I understand, and can find a new reviewer; otherwise, it would be great if you could prioritize this. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: That may be for the best. I've found myself rather busy with off-wiki matters. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

@Le Petit Chat: Hi, I was asked by BlueMoonset to take a look at this. Building on Vami's review, it looks quite good. The main issue was broadness of coverage, and though I am not an expert in French tanks, I can see that since Vami's comment and recommendation to add more in the Service history section, there has been a decent expansion (especially in this area). The other area for concern was the written quality; I read through and the language looks fine, but it is too technical to understand in some places, e.g. the phrase intended to work with the AMX-10 RC, the Hotchkiss M201 being obsolete when compared with the Soviet BRDM-2s. Also, what "NBC hazards" are should be explained.

Expanded the given sentence: "intended to work with the AMX-10 RC "wheeled tank", the Hotchkiss M201 jeep being obsolete when compared with the Soviet BRDM-2 armoured car"--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the distance between the plant and Paris. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

Perhaps 'horsepower' could get a wikilink when used.
done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of why the mass increased by half a ton.
added "due to the addition of more weapons, armour and systems"--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it out of production if the last from the factory was 2010?
That's not very clear. In 2014, a new production was planned in Russia. Panhard might have kept the production machine tools in a depot.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is "to speed" being used correctly in power ratio enable the VBL to speed at 95 km/h (59 mph) - isn't it just 'to drive'?
Done even in French it's incorrect--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend changing the word 'Beyrouth' to one of the more accurate spellings in that article - it is written in English as 'Beirut' and Beyrouth is much more similar to the German Bayreuth. It's unnecessarily confusing to keep as Beyrouth, especially in English wikipedia.
Done --Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Write out numbers under 20 - I did one, then noticed more
Done--Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also done one rephrase to make reading the Service history section less whiplash, but some more editing could be done, particularly when connecting and changing topic.
@Kingsif: I tried to improve connections between paragraphs: Special:Diff/938806887. Is it better?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it, feel free to ask questions. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this over, Kingsif. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, did a quick ce because it was only small comments left, again, feel free to comment on these edits. Kingsif (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Petit Chat: Could you add the article to the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare, I can't see one applicable :) Kingsif (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to Weapons, military equipment and programs.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]