Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/DI MA-1 Mk. III

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 US Referee talk 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

DI MA-1 Mk. III

(
)
  • ... that the DI MA-1 Mk. III rifle was made in Myanmar without license despite claims that it was made entirely in Myanmar?
Created by Ominae (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Ominae (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: No - yDebatable. I don't see a single source that actually agrees that the rifle is actually indigenous, as the Myanma claim. At the same time, I don't see a single Myanma source. I suspect these two issues are related. I understand Myanmar does not have a great media compared to the US and China, but not a single source? Even a government press release? How did the Chinese and English language sources get the information that Myanmar claims the rifle is indigenous? Took a quick look myself, and will AGF that there just aren't many or any Myanmar military sources saying that which can be found
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - See below.
QPQ: Done.
Overall:
  • The words "despite" both in hook 1 and in the article seems misplaced. Was made in Myanmar despite claims of being made in Myanmar? Despite claims it was indigenous it was made without license? I think what you're trying to say is something like "is an unlicensed clone despite claims of being made indigenously", which is what Military Today says.
  • For hook 2, I worry about a Vietnamese source citing Chinese media about a Myanma rifle (for an English language article!). I don't see an article about kienthuc.net.vn, but looking at the site, it seems to have Very Intrusive ads, which at least in the US is usually a sign of low quality. Is it really a high quality source? Any chance we can find the actual Chinese media source they're talking about?

Then there are other issues; you don't technically have to fix all of these, but addressing some might be good.

  • Lowercase "bullpup" in lede
  • "The MA designation on the weapon means Myanmar Army"
    • Why is Myanmar Army bolded?
    • What does DI mean?
  • Link Tatmadaw (History) and QBZ-97 (Lede)
  • History: Can you explain that the EMER-K1 was also a QBZ-97 clone? You sort of hint at this but don't say it outright.
  • " they were reported to be suitable for the Tatmadaw in jungle operations and for use by an average Myanma soldier." Er - what is the difference between the Tatmadaw and an average Myanma soldier? Aren't the Tatmadaw the majority of Myanma armed forces?
  • "ergonic"?
GRuban (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban:: I did most of the editing based on your suggestions. I removed the "despite" part from the article and switched it to another word. And yeah, I'm trying to use something like that based on the MT article. For any Myanma-based article, I could only find those written/uploaded on reddit, facebook or Youtube, either by the pro-Tatamadaw/PDF crowd, which aren't a good source. In addition, the Myanmar Directorate of Defence Industries doesn't put up a website (likely) as part of an effort to mask their production/related info. Some of the info done is based on research done by those who use open source information. While the DDI debuted with new brochures and all in Thailand in 2019, they didn't show brochures for the MA-1 Mk III.

For Chinese articles, I'll try and see if there's anything worthwhile to add. It's the only area that's worth going on. It wouldn't surprise me if it's mostly because the Tatmadaw went behind China's back to clone the QBZ-97 without at least notifying Beijing. It's also likely the only place to go to. Ominae (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I also made minor changes to the article, and it's mostly OK. However, the key point for DYK is the hook, and I worry about both the "claims" and "criticised" lines of the suggested hooks. Do you have another idea? How about something as straightforward as "...was made in Myanmar as a reverse engineered copy of the Chinese ...?" --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@GRuban: That can work. Have no problem changing the hook. Ominae (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ominae: So spell out the hook, with a specific supporting source, a good one; if I write it, I can't also approve it. --GRuban (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@GRUban: Doing it now. Have a source (in English, not using Chinese sources) that can say that the MA-1 Mk. III is reverse engineered from the QBZ-97.
Ominae (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To Prep 5

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/DI_MA-1_Mk._III&oldid=1239550048"