Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)
Toolbox

I think that this short, but detailed, article on an important Australian variant of the British QF 25-pounder artillery gun may meet the A class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Only a few comments from me, mainly just suggestions.
    • no dab links, ext links fine, alt text present (no action required);
    • in the lead, I suggest perhaps rewording "...during the fighting in the South West Pacific Area and was declared obsolete in 1946". I think this would work better if the words "and was" were replaced with "before being";
      • Done
    • in the Background section, could the "harsh" conditions in New Guinea be clarified a bit more?
    • there is some inconsistency in capitalisation. Malayan Campaign appears, but then New Guinea campaign (capital "C", then lower case "c" for campaign);
      • Fixed
    • in the Design section the word "thirty eight" is used, I think this should be hyphenated (not sure, though) - I understand why you've chosen to spell it in this regard as it would be a bit confusing next to the "75mm";
      • Done
    • was there a reason gun shields were not incorporated? I think I've read somewhere that it was to limit weight so they could be more easily tranported in the jungle;
      • I think that you're right, but none of the sources I found explicitly said this...
    • in the Service section, there is an inconsistency in capitalisation here: "preferred the 75 mm pack howitizer to the 25-pounder short". I think "short" here should be capitalised;
      • Fixed
    • in the Service section, 9th Division could probably be linked;
      • Done (I can't believe that I missed that!)
    • should "trade offs" be hyphenated (not sure, sorry)?;
      • I don't think so
    • the ribbon template at the bottom might look better collapsed;
      • I think that might require the template to be edited

Anyway that's it from me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support A couple of observations/questions (ec with AussieRupert...sorry for any dupliction) I'm happy. -- saberwyn 00:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason behind the non=fulfilment of the US M116 howitzer order?
      • I've tweaked this to 'not immediately filled'. There's a 1944 Australian Army publication available via Google books which says that none of these guns were available, but I'm reluctant to use it as it was published during the war and was wrong about 3.7 inch howitzers also not being available.
    • "The three agencies involved in the project cooperated well and were strongly motivated to provide the Army with a useful light artillery piece as quickly as possible"...was the cooperation because of the strong motivation to build useful weapons, or was the cooperation due to other factors?
      • To get the gun into the field as quickly as possible - I've tweaked the wording
    • Forgive the water rat, but what is a trail, and how does making it lighter improve/affect the gun?
      • It's the long bit of the carriage that sticks out of the back of the gun. Unfortunately I can't find a good article or Wikidictionary term to link to...
    • Conversons of the various measurements ("75mm pack howitzers", "four foot barrel", etc) would be of benefit.
      • I've converted 'four foot', but '75mm pack howitzer' and '3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer' are the names of these guns.
    • The phrase "...a new cradle, trail and axles" comes up twice in the Design section (paras 2 and 3). Could one of them be changed or removed?
      • oops! Well spotted. I've removed the first instance
  • All for now, but looking good so far. Will most likely support one these are addressed. -- saberwyn 12:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work. That one hyphen that needed to be dashed was very hard work for me, not. On another note, was Maribyrnong part of teh urban sprawl or still separate in those days? Nearby Sunshine was still separate in the late 1920s YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ordnance_QF_25-pounder_Short&oldid=1088198089"