Talk:Heuschrecke 10

GA commentary/review

For the original GA comments see /Comments.

I hadn't known of this vehicle. Thanks

It took a reading or two to understand how it was intended to be used, not because you weren't clear but that it was a distinctly different concept. Once I understood it, can its design be traced as influencing other military vehicles, not necessarily for the same purpose? I immediately thought of Armoured vehicle-launched bridge and wondered if there is any connection. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps... I will add a section on that referes to modern day technology that may have originated from something like this. Dreamafter ^Talk 20:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is right here. Dreamafter ^Talk 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this section; the link goes back to the same article. See Armoured vehicle-launched bridge. Apparently, the first AVLB was German and preceded the Heuschrecke, but it is probably fair to observe that the concept of a self-deploying (?) piece of equipment was German, and the idea has become common in AVLBs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed becuase it had little relevance. ~ Dreamy ^§ 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

More background

It would be good to know more about why they needed this vehicle and if it would replace other vehicles or equipment. Who made a request for the design (Amry commanders or just in general) etcGraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've completed a full copy edit, added a few tags, and removed unnecessary white-space. If you're going for FAC, I would recommend lengthening the background of the gun. If you need another copy edit, don't hesitate to ask for another at WP:GOCE, or at my talk page. Good luck! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Incredible

That is, the dual-use removable turret. Are there any sources explaining the reasoning that led to such "swiss knife of an SPG" concept? Wasn't it obvious that the combination was just too smart to compete against ordinary towed or ordinary self-propelled guns? East of Borschov 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GAR

The definition of This artice may confuses the Krupp-Gruson's design with the Rheinmetall-Borsig's design in the first two paragraph.They are not one vehicle!And the Rheinmetall-Borsig's design shouldn't be called"The production models".and the defination of "The production models " is cofusing.Meanwhile,this artice doesn't catch the point very well.-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 12:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heuschrecke 10/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==GA assessment== GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: B. MoS compliance: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: 1: Minor issues with lead, e.g. it does not summarize all topics (competion, armour and prototype) and “A prototype that was never put into action, multiple prototypes were designed and built, but none were put into the full production stage” borders on redundancy.  Done Inconsistent use of American and “Queen’s” English, e.g. “Armour” is “Queen’s” and “utilize” is American. Language should be consistent.  Done Possible weasel words, e.g. “it was then decided”.  Done Grammar issues, e.g. the comma does not belong in “by placing it on Panzerkampfwagen IV, or Panzer IV, chassis and …” and the article needs commas to separate independent clauses. I’m not sure “Waffenträger” is an appropriate title for the article. “Heuschrecke 10” is the actual designation; “Waffenträger” just describes functionality. Perhaps a move is in order?  Done 2: Article relies solely on one source – Achtung Panzer. Additional sources are needed very badly. Further, as this article essentially reiterates the Achtung Panzer page, there may be copyright/plagiarism implications. Per WP:NOTE, “a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. As a technical matter, this article may be eligible for speedy deletion with only one source and no assertion of notability/importance.  Done 3: Article content is too minimal. At a minimum, elaboration is needed on the impetus for its design, intended application if produced (e.g. Atlantic Wall, Eastern Front, etc.), design process (e.g. why was chassis changed) and reason(s) it was not put into active service. This was essentially a turret delivery vehicle that could carry ordinance once the turret had been deployed. Why, then, is there so little discussion about armament and so much about armor (something that, in the article’s current state, appears to be of minimal importance)?  Done Do historians or contemporary figures (axis and/or allies) have opinions about the vehicle’s expected impact on the war effort, had it been utilized? How is it that one of these survived, given the German desperation for materials late in the war? The PzKfW in the photo is at the United States Army Ordnance Museum. How did the US get their hands on one? General: I’ve placed the GA nomination on hold. If additional, reliable sources and significant additional content can be added promptly (7 days), the article will pass. Please let me know if there are questions or if my assistance is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC) The article is progressing; here are some follow-up comments: Competition section needs rewording, e.g. article states the Heuschrecke “was built in competition with Krupp's Heuschrecke 10”. It was not built in competition with itself. Article states “Its overall performance was slightly better than that of Krupps' vehicle”. Heuschrecke is the Krupp vehicle; Alkett/Rhinemetall made the other one. Article needs to more clearly define and distinguish the two versions.  Done “The turret could then be used…” is the first sentence of the “Design” paragraph. The “then” implies this sentence should be preceded by something.  Done Change infobox header and image caption to reflect “Heuschrecke 10”, not Waffenträger.  Done I reformatted the references and provided an additional link. Here are three more from which you should gather information: Data comparison between Krupp and Rhinemetall versions Overview page - has reason these were developed Minimal info, but at least it’s another source. Maybe an external link for the photos  Done Add additional content from these sources and the two German sources already added and I believe content will be sufficient to pass. Done Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Almost there – fix these things and we’ll wrap it up: Competition section is still wrong. Krupp’s model was the Heuschrecke. The Rheinmetall was not given a “name”, but was called by its literal description (10.5cm leFH 18/40/2 auf Geschützwagen III/IV) – which is just 105mm light field howitzer on ordinance vehicle III/IV (we aren’t the most creative people). Also, the Rheinmetall version was the one with the superior performance (the Achtung Panzer site is not well written, so I can see the confusion). Design section reads like a bunch of sentences have been thrown together, not written as a cohesive paragraph. Rephrase to make it a progressive and lucid thought (start by making the last sentence the first). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Heuschrecke 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Article has numerous problems. Chief among them: A complete lack of verifiability due to the primary source being Achtung Panzer!, an unacceptable WP:SELFPUB source. This concern was not resolved during the A class review closed as "delist" in August. Schierbecker (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Delist per nom. This likely should not have passed GA in the first place (see the state of the article on the date it passed GA). The GA review for the article noted the issue with Achtung Panzer! being the main source, as well as potential copyvio issues, and then passed the article after only a few more sources were added. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.