Talk:BMD-3

renaming

It is my contention taht this article should be renamed BMD-3 to bring it into line with all the other afv articles such as BMD-1, BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, BRDM, etc... I would love to start linking to this article and remove the tag, but I'm waiting for the name change. I tried to do it myself but BMD-3 is already a redirect to BMD-1. Cheers. L0b0t 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Cheers. L0b0t 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration

The meaning of "BMD" in the Russian language is Boyevaya Mashina Desanta, not Boyevaya Mashina Desantnya (as it currently says in the article). I'd change it, but don't know how. 71.210.0.97 (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed GA

My apologies. My skills and understanding of the GA process did not meet the needs. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BMD-3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jrcrin001 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Lead - Lede too long. I moved a portion to the development section. Looks good otherwise.
  Jrcrin001 (talk 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE:: Author reverted lede change. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It looks good to me, but I would like a second opinion thus it is on hold. This is my first attempt at GA review. Still concerned about the lede as mentioned above. This was nominated by Al Khazar on 1 Oct 2014 but not listed as a GA nominee on article talk page. Article had been rated Start but it was easily B class so I updated that. So other steps may be missing? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not checked it thoroughly for content, but it is not too long. For info on lead standards, see WP:LEADLENGTH.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A good article is— 1.Well-written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. - Yes

• Looks good. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

2.Verifiable with no original research: a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; b.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and c.it contains no original research. = yes

• Appears to have no significant problems. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). = yes

• Good coverage, looks taut. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. = yes

• No problems seen. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. = yes

• okay. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions= yes

• Adequate. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Jrcrin001, since it seems you want a second opinion on this, the only status the GA nominee template should have is "2ndopinion"—there should only ever be one "status" field at one time, and that's the one needed to call attention to the fact that the review needs someone else to look at it. (Multiple status fields only confuse the bots that put out the notices, since they're only allowed to pick one status.)

It's very clear to me that there is a significant issue with the lead. According to WP:LEAD, specifically the WP:MOSINTRO section, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. While an article of this size should have two or three paragraphs, not one (see WP:LEADLENGTH), it's what's in them that matters, and there's a lot of detail in the second and third paragraphs that belongs in the body of the article, while a summary of what's in the entire body is what should be in the intro.

I'm frankly alarmed by the number of identical phrases between the article and the second source at armyrecognition.com; see the Duplication detector report. I haven't checked any other sources, but I see no evidence that the material on this site is in the public domain or given any kind of free-use license. Copyright is one of the key criteria of number 1 in your review above, and the check I did is one of those you should have done with the highly cited online sources, with a spot check on some of the others.

Finally, it's a very rare article that doesn't have any grammatical issues, prose shortcomings, or simply misspellings and the like. These should be pointed out during a review, assuming you don't fix them yourself as you go along. I found a puzzling phrase at the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph of "Engine and mobility": and in a sea state of up to three. I couldn't tell whether "three" meant 3 km/h or some other unexplained "three", and I couldn't find anything about it in the listed source—this is the sort of thing you point out and ask for clarification or rewording. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: a "close paraphrasing" template has been added to the article. So long as that template remains, or indeed any close paraphrasing issues remain, this nomination cannot pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note on the sea state line - a sea state of three would be one with waves between half a meter and 1.25 meters in height. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

I recently rewrote most of the article to eliminate the close paraphrasing. Khazar (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Significant and clear close paraphrasing still remains, and I see that the reviewer of another of your nominations, BMPT Terminator, has noted close paraphrasing of armyrecognition.com in that article as well. My recommendation to Jrcrin001 is that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful due to continuing issues with close paraphrasing. If Jrcrin001 has not returned to this nomination in the next several days and clear close paraphrasing remains, I'll close it myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed GA

My apologies. My skills and understanding of the GA process did not meet the needs. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BMD-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://warfare.be/db/catid/245/linkid/1783/title/bmd-3/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://warfare.be/db/catid/245/linkid/2500/title/bmd-4-/-bmd-3m-bakhcha-airborne-combat-vehicle/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMD-3. 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/20130327223655/http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/rhm-5_povozka_d-1_nbc_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/rhm-5_povozka_d-1_nbc_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

NBC Link

In the section of the article: Countermeasures, there is a link to the definition of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) but it doesn't currently work and sends you to the page for the National Broadcasting Company instead of the correct page (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear).

I am not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia enough to get it to show "NBC" but link to the "CBRN Defense" page. This seems rather important.

164.116.126.175 (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)