Wikipedia:Peer review/Ch'onma-ho/archive1

Ch'onma-ho

Just need a review to improve the article. This is not meant as a review for a featured article candidacy. I just want to get it there - I plan for many peer reviews. Any help for improving the deployment section especially would be appreciated! Thank you! JonCatalan 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only skimmed it briefly, but a couple of things stood out. The lead is a bit weak - it's too specific, doesn't give enough of an overview. One of the cites is to another WP article which shouldn't be done. The website in the references should be hyperlinked - check a featured article to see how they do it. The first 3 sections look quite good. Trebor 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it a bit. All the units, except the ones I missed, should have the space between them, and all the stuff the automated peer review suggested has been followed except the weasel words, since a lot of the times weasel words had to be used given the lack of information. Nevertheless, I will go into a more thorough review of what I wrote at a later date to reword what I can. I changed around the lead, although I still don't think it can be considered strong, and I linked all the references to the websites which are referred to. Regards, JonCatalan 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tricky article to edit fairly because of the ambiguity surrounding it. Quick question surrounding the pluralisation of the word: should "Around 90% of the Ch'onma-ho is indigenously produced" be "are"? Trebor 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 90% of Ch'onma-ho is produced within the context of 90% of the parts that make up the tank, as opposed to 90% of total tank production. JonCatalan 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, okay. I read it completely wrong. Trebor 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like really good work overall, on a very difficult subject. Your references look very solid, although I'm not really in a position to judge. I think the biggest problems which this article currently faces are style and tone. In particular, adverbs and phrases like "certainly" seem out of place, given that the article's subject is only sketchily known. Also phrases like this:

Between 1939 and 1953 much of Spain's armour fell into disrepair due to its age, and the same could be true for the North Korean military.

are skirting the edge of a WP:NOR violation, and should really be either sourced (tell us exactly who has speculated thus), or removed. Again, congrats on the good work with this article! -- Visviva 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]