Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ordnance QF 18-pounder

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.

Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK₀₀₄ 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnance QF 18 pounder[edit]

Nominator(s): Rcbutcher (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the subject is of major military historical importance and warrants A class treatment. The article has been greatly updated since last review and now includes fully referenced historical and technical details & relevant images. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a significant proportion of this article is unreferenced. Also, there are MoS issues with the capitalisation of non-proper nouns in the subheadings which concerns me as to whether or not the rest of the article as a whole is compliant with MoS. In effect, this article fails criteria A1 and A4. Sorry, but at the moment the article is not quite up to A-Class standard. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as above the lacks of references jumps out can I suggest, you re submit this for a peer review which will help towards A Class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at a A class assessment so please be patient... to me the important points made are referenced, and to reference every single piece of information would make it unreadable. Everything in the article comes from the sources mentioned. So what exactly needs to be "referenced" ?Rcbutcher (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every point needs to be referenced, at the moment there are large paragraphs of text unreferenced. If you want I can add ^{[citation needed]} tags ?
Some of the notes are not referenced 5 and 6 for example others like 30 need page numbers, others need adding to the Bibliography 31 Farndale for example.
No disambiguation links - well done.
The images all need alt text.
The combat use section needs cutting down. The First World War section needs to be a similar size to the Second World War section and all combined under one heading.
Some of the images are redundant the one in the 1914 section for example. Even expanded it is very hard to see any guns.
The Extended specification section - can this not be included in the inf box template ? If not prose would be better than bullet points.
With many images in the text is there a need for an image gallery with only two pictures.
The World War I Ammunition section - there are some good cut away pictures in this section - but the article is about the gun, agreed some mention of the ammo is needed but this could provide the basis for a good article in its own right.

Don't give up its a good start.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the comments above (and particularly that the article provides a good basis for further improvements). Could I suggest that this A class review be closed and this discussion be moved to a peer review? Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Nick, providing Rcbutcher is okay with this? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the comments and notes added to the page, I agree, it has quantity but lacks some quality.. should be peer review. Thanks for the feedback so far. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:14, 2 June 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.