Talk:Tiger II/GA1

GA Review

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

• I'm a little confused by the description of the track link design. What virtue did that have over normal track links? You'll need a citation for this paragraph before I can promote this article.
• Provide a link to the Jagdtiger article.
• Provide a link to explain APDS
• What was the ground pressure?
• Conversions are need to English units everywhere they're not already provided.
• You need a page number for the Wilbeck reference. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I only just noticed that you've started the review. (thanks).

The track link addition has only just been added by another editor, and I'm seeking references for it from them. Once I have them I'll copy edit it for relevance.

I'll look into your other points immediately. Hohum (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is already a link to the Jagdtiger article in the lead and twice in the main body.
• APDS is now linked.
• Ground pressure added.

Can you point to any particular conversions I've missed?

Just the one for armor in the infobox.

• Conversion supplied.

• Changed Wilbeck reference to Schneider.

Hohum (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The track link design stuff is off base/useless. While it is not wrong to write that the Tiger II had connector and contact links, that design is not unique to the Tiger II and was not even novel when it was used then. Might as well say the tank had armor. I've deleted it for the (I think) third time. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Need a couple of cites and watch your hyphens vs. n-dashes. I think you mostly used the former for your page numbers in your cites, when it should be the latter. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. Just to clarify you needn't make these changes now, but you will if you want to go for A-class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably best if I work on them now ;). Could you cross out the issues in your list if I have addressed them please? I also note you've added a couple of fact tags, I'll attend to them immediately. Hohum (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added citations, removed one uncited passage, fixed all the hyphen/en-dashes that I could find. Hohum (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• I've never heard this term before: series-hybrid power system. You explain it well, but I've always seen that sort of system referred to as gasoline-electric.

It's the term used in the reference material. Also, I notice wikipedia redirects Gasoline-electric hybrid to Hybrid electric, and since the Porsche proposal was of two engines in series, series-hybrid seems appropriate. I can change it to include a link to Hybrid electric if required. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about a link since it's explained in the text, but I've honestly never heard Porsche's over-complicated system referred to as "series-hybrid". It just grates on me because it's nonsensical if I try and parse it. What kind of series? Hybrid with what? I'm wondering where Jentz came up with it. Gasoline-electric hybrid or petrol-electric hybrid if you hail from that world would be find, but not series-hybrid.

• Used "gasoline-electric hybrid" and linked it for clarity. Hohum (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest combining these two sentences: Another proposal was to use hydraulic drives. Dr. Porsche's unorthodox designs gathered little favor.

Since the final sentence relates to all of Porsche's preceding unorthodox designs, I don't see that combining them makes much sense, unless I'm missing your point. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That can't entirely be true since some of the suspension designs were used on Jagdtigers, but you're right about the powerplant/transmission stuff. So I won't insist on the point.

• Convert the 100 m figure when talking about the gun's penetration. And the range figures in the 17-pdr's penetration section.

• Done

• You imply it, but never actually say that the early Tiger IIs were maintenance nightmares, but that later production vehicles were far less troublesome. It might fill out the paragraph on much better the figures were for 1945.

In my sources, I don't remember one that says maintenance was itself difficult, rather that it was often required. Also, I can't quite understand your last sentence. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about my second sentence; that didn't come out the way that I meant it at all. What I meant was that your paragraph with the serviceability numbers for 1945 is very short and that you could maybe beef that up with a comment about how serviceability was initially low, but improved over time.

• I have slightly expaned the passage and modified the reference accordingly. My sources don;t say much more. Hohum (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted a bunch of your redundant cites; you only need to cite once per paragraph if everything in that paragraph came from the same source and if nothing is particularly controversial. Otherwise it's distracting to the reader.

Although I agree, I did that because of the tendency of people to question the source of sentences early in a paragraph - which has even happened in this article in the last week or so. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it all depends on your definition of "controversial". Personally, if somebody questioned it, I might add in a cite for that one point, but only if I agreed that it was a little controversial. Problem is that the Tiger II is so famous that a lot of BS has been put out where innocents can read it and think that it's the gospel truth. And then you have the guys who want to duel with your sources over every little difference with their favorite source. Both types are a pain, but something you gotta deal with if you want to defend the integrity of your article.

• I only found one more needed cite, but I'd actually delete it or fold it into the lead where it could talk about it being used on the Eastern and Western Fronts for the rest of the war, or some such.

Gah, that one's a pain to cite properly, because it's such a wide ranging paragraph - Can I just point to entire books, or should I pick out the relevant page(s) for each theatre? Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's a pain; that's why I was suggesting that you fold it into the lead, because you do need page numbers. The other approach is to go whole hog and list which battalions fought in which battles, with page numbers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Citations added in situ. Hohum (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• All earlier issues have been fixed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I think I've got everything. Is there anything I've missed, or something else to be done? Hohum (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)