Talk:Ground Combat Vehicle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Many paragraphs are too short so that it reads choppily. Consolidate the three paragraphs for the IFV, forex.

   Rewrite this sentence: It is the U.S. Army's intention that this IFV will replace the main variants of the M113 (M113A2 & M113A3) meanwhile supplanting and displacing the MRAP, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Stryker into task specific derivatives of the M113 such as mortar or fire support, thus replacing the M113 by 2018. Much of this article still sounds like it was copied from a press release. Please rewrite it in ordinary language.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Capitalize titles in the references; lead paragraph doesn't summarize the article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Needs one cite unless paragraph is consolidated.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Need to add where the one conference was held

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Much more information is now coming in about the GCV. I'll need a week to incorporate it.username 1 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are we with this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Has the RFP been issued yet? All references need place of publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that last; they're all on the net. You need to discuss the prototyping and fielding dates; they're not mentioned in the main body. I'd switch a lot of the capabilities language to must have/should have, etc. rather than will have. And reword "soldier systems"! Combine some of these very short paragraphs. Provide a link to Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Fix the capitalization on the Ramienski citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks but will leave the major issues to the article writer; hopefully this can be wrapped up soon, though I trust it will since quite a bit of work has been put into it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can this review be wrapped up? Everything probably should've been finished by now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  Actually the main issues have not yet been resolved. Capitaliztion issues remain as do the awkward text. I've tagged the problematic sections. I'll give you a week to rectify these issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)