Template:Did you know nominations/Centurion C-RAM
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Centurion C-RAM
.jpg)
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).
- I've watchlisted the article's talk page and will review this when it's kept.--Launchballer 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I did say I would review this, and I will do so in the morning.--Launchballer 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
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.--Launchballer 11:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- To the right of the table, which I recommend converting to prose anyway, and above Experimental versions.--Launchballer 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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?)--Launchballer 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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.
- @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?)--Launchballer 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- To the right of the table, which I recommend converting to prose anyway, and above Experimental versions.--Launchballer 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- I did say I would review this, and I will do so in the morning.--Launchballer 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
: @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.--Launchballer 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
