Wikipedia:Peer review/Heuschrecke 10/archive2

Heuschrecke 10

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed before, but I am sure that still has small flaws that can be identified.

Thanks, Tartarus ^talk 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum

Before I noticed that you had only just started a peer review, I'd just looked at the article by pure chance. I have just removed some content that wasn't supported by the sources given, both of which I have access to. Also removed some conclusions which were a synthesis not mentioned in any of the sources cited.

Sadly, I don't think the article currently merits B, let alone A, or GA. although it can probably easily make B with some corrections, and GA with some work.

The lead should summarize the article content, and not have separate unsourced information in it. (i.e. to be built in Magdeburg). It also shouldn't have minutia like the serial numbers of prototypes.

Grammar. For example: "Mass production of the Heuschrecke 10 was scheduled to start in February 1945, but never eventuated."

Unsourced paragraphs and phrases tagged.

Citations of books should have page numbers.

Break it into more logical sections. The version that previously passed an A class review in 2008 had a better structure [1].

(Hohum ^@) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your enlightening conclusions, but I would like you to elaborate. When you state grammar, what do you mean? Also, I have attempted some fixes. Tartarus ^talk 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a good start. Well, I gave one example of a grammar issue. "Eventuated" is rather an unusual word to use, and will puzzle the average user IMO, but other phrases like "The Heuschrecke designed by Krupp was similar in design to a vehicle built by..." are awkwardly worded, when "The design by Krupp was similar to a vehicle built by..." would convey the same. I have a feeling a good deal of the article has been translated from German. (Hohum ^@) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]