Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Karl-Gerät

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Peer review

Karl-Gerät

edit

I've been working on this one pretty steadily and have pretty well exhausted the available literature. I think that it's well beyond B status and may well be eligible for A with some more work. I'd appreciate any and all comments to let me improve it up to A status. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

edit

Actually there is a lot that needs to be done, B-class generally expects at least a cite per paragraph

  • Footnotes not cited consisted; pp and p are both used for multiple pages. Ndashes need to be used for numerical ranges
Done
  • The two websites that are cited seem to be amateur and have no information on their WP:RS status. Otherwise, the article is almost entirely dependent on one book, which can be a problem/
This is a general problem as nobody had any real information on the weapon other than stats and its participation in the Battles of Brest-Litovsk, Sevastopol and Warsaw before Jentz released his book. I wouldn't have used the first one at all for the claim to be the largest self-propelled weapon in history except that I didn't want to be dinged for OR.
  • Cites nees to be imediately after the puncutation
Done
  • Lead is very short.
This is what I'm concerned about; what else should I cover in the lead, specifically? I've said why it was notable and gave a brief synopsis of its career and the fate of the individual vehicles. Doesn't seem appropriate to expand them in the lead. This is a general problem for the equipment articles which I write and I'd like some pointers since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of stuff to work with when you either lack the info for the rare guns, etc., or have so many produced that they become almost anonymous in their numbers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many other problems probably still remain. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

edit
  • The status report section - well reads like a status report and is not encyclopaedic
  • What make this site reliable ? [1]
See above. In the one particular that I support it verifies my own original research.
See Wikipedia:No original research
Why do you think I didn't simply assert it? My own research simply confirms that the website in question is, in fact, accurate for the cited fact. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; this is simply a superlative and easy to confirm or deny. If I ever bother to find a crappy printed general history of artillery that says as much then I'll replace the cite, but until then... Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and this one [2] It's only present to give a reader information on the Maxim Gorkii Battery, for which no article exists, not to support the fact that Karl-Geräte fired on it, which is cited at the end of the paragraph.

  • The lead is already tagged for expansion
Something a little more helpful, please?
  • It also relies very much on the one source Jentz
See above, can't get around it.
  • The ammunition section schwere Betongranate (heavy concrete-piercing shell) as this is the English Wiki , English first then the German translation in brackets.
  • In the Status and fate section In 1945, Nr. II ("Eva") as well as Nr. V ("Loki") does Nr stand for number ? if so spell it out.
That's clunky as hell!
That's one of the very few that haven't been translated, but good catch. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comment -
You are quite correct, I haven't seen Taube. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight

edit

Many things need improving before it can be promoted.

  • The lede should be expanded to include additional details (e.g. When was it in service (years)? How many were in service? What happened to the other pieces?) The producer (Rheinmetall) could be added too. Also, "It is notable because..." should be rephrased to something simpler (e.g. It was the...).
That I can use, thanks.
  • Same concerns with the sourcing (unreliable websites, one source).
  • The tables under "automative features" and "ammunition" could be turned into prose, which would reduce the amount of tables in the article.
Sure, they can be, but the tables are easier to comprehend.
If you insist on having tables, make sure you have some short summary of the table before, which can clear up any confusions about the table. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment on confusion. How can a reader be confused about the tables? There's already a short intro for the automotive table. But how can anyone be confused about its ammunition? Please clarify your meaning here. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one, a clarification for the light concrete-piercing shell (leichte Betongranate) and the leichte Betongranate 041, which have very similar names would be helpful to the casual reader. Also, are there statistics about the percentage of each fired? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since leichte Betongranate had just been translated in the line above I though it redundant to translate it again, but the main difference between them is the caliber, which is laid out in the table. The ammo for the original 60 cm guns had no designation other than the name. They added the Gerät number for the 54 cm ammo. Would that be helpful to add as an intro for the ammunition section? No such statistics exist; they'd have to be compiled from the data presented in the article.
Yes, that would be helpful to add as an intro. Also helpful would be when the ammunition was introduced into service. If those statistics can cannot be reliably sourced from the book, then you shouldn't add them. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History should be renamed to "Operational history", since the history of its development is already covered.
Very true, thanks.

Sorry, but I think that quoting verbatim original documents is far better than me rephrasing the same. A little fetish I have for primary sources. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's quoted verbatim, it should indicate so. I'm not sure how exactly, since it's too long for blockquotes. In its current form, its not very encyclopedic. Perhaps you could paraphrase it, and use an external link to a copy of it on the web? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is shown in the cite as a direct quote. The only way a copy is going to be available to link to is for me to type one up which doesn't seem worthwhile since we no longer use subpages. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting an entire primary source verbatim is too long for most readers to comfortably read, and should not be in an encyclopedia article, especially when it could very easily be paraphased into a readable length. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about this. You guys make a big deal about suitability for an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that I really agree with the level of detail, or lack there of, that y'all seem to be espousing. I want to present info of interest to a specialist, but not the stuff that only a fanatic would care about because I think that a casual reader will find it deathly boring while the fanatic will say that "I already knew that!". The perfect example, in this case, is the automotive stuff in this article, which I, as a specialist, only find mildly interesting because it shows how inefficient the Germans were that they couldn't standardize the components of these 7 vehicles. Similarly I think that the real value in the verbatim report is showing wargamers and Military/History Channel fans that the soft factors, like the readiness of things like trailers and cranes, when spelled out in detail, have a real impact on a weapon's performance and/or availability so that it's not all about the range or penetration, those things which are so easy to quantify and compare. So I guess that I'm writing for somebody like me, somebody who wants to more about these things than is given in any of the numerous published guides to weapons like most of those that I cite in the references section where you have little more than the stats and a paragraph or two of information. Which leads to the other problem of a single source that y'all complain about. While I haven't read the Taube book that was already referenced when I began to expand the article I'm familiar with his railroad artillery book and I don't expect to get much out of it if I ever get it through ILL. Which leaves Jentz as the sole source for the operational details and most of the technical ones as well simply because his book is dedicated to the Karl-Gerät and nothing else is. And that's unlikely ever to change and I'm OK with that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from, but in its current form, it is unencyclopedic, a concern, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. The status report could be paraphased into a shorter, more readable section, and still maintain its interest to specialists. Also, if you're copying this word for word from Jentz's book, might there not be potential copyright concerns? Also, I noticed that this is the class of the Thor mortar used in the Siege of Sevastopol in the Second World War, and that could be expanded on more. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Karl-Gerät&oldid=1087823679"