Talk:Bazooka/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the World War II section, "Initially supplied with the highly unreliable M6 rocket and without training, the M1 did not play a significant armed role in combat in the North African fighting [16]," the comma needs to before the ref. Same section, "In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1 bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka under Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch invasions in the North African Campaign[1]." again, the period needs to come before the ref.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Born too late for WW-I section, it would be best if "Maryland" was linked once, per here. Same section, the link to "Indian Head" needs to be correctly linked to its correspondence article. The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here. There needs to be a consistency between "U.S." versus "US" and "Gen." and "General". The quote in the World War II section, is not supposed to be italicized, per here.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24, and 26 need to be properly formatted.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Is there a source for this ---> "In the Pacific campaign, as in North Africa, the original bazookas sent to combat often had reliability issues. The battery-operated firing circuit was easily damaged during rough handling, and the rocket motors often failed because of high temperatures and exposure to moisture, salt air, or humidity. With the introduction of the M1A1 and its more reliable rocket ammunition, the bazooka was effective against some fixed Japanese infantry emplacements such as small concrete bunkers and pill boxes. Against coconut and sand emplacements, the weapon was not always effective, as these softer structures proved too resilient, often absorbing the warhead's impact sufficiently to prevent detonation of the explosive charge. Later in the Pacific war, most infantry and marine units often used the M2 flamethrower to overcome such obstacles. In the few instances in the Pacific where the bazooka was used against tanks and armored vehicles, the rocket's warhead easily penetrated the thin armor plate used by the Japanese, destroying the vehicle"? Also, are there any sources available for the Vietnam war and Other conflicts section?

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think some things have been missed in this review. The lead is fragmentary and needs expanding, the section titles aren't exactly encyclopaedic, facts are mentioned in the lead that aren't mentioned in the main body of the article, and the later sections could be greatly expanded. And documentaries are not reliable sources - they need to be replaced by proper, verifiable references in books or articles. And the websites like geocities need to be removed as also being unreliable. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm very new to this sort of info. so if you believe that there is a problem with the article, maybe you should help the users who are improving this article. Note: I find it hard to believe that documentaries are not reliable sources, I believe that if they have reasonable detail, concerning the article, the info. is likely to help out. Also, if the nominator or whom ever works in this article, does not believe that the article is ready for Good article status, then I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe there are problems, and I am attempting to fix the article up; however, gathering sources is taking some time. I'd like to take the documentaries question to the MilHist talkpage. As for the nominator, if you look at the section above you'll see he isn't really involved with the article and simply nominated it to gain attention for the article to be fixed up by someone else. Skinny87 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that the article is using at least two websites for citations which are in no way reliable - they just can't be used as they don't cite their sources and seem generally unreliable. This also hasn't been addressed by whoever is editing this article - whomever that actually is.Skinny87 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Perhaps I could offer a compromise? I am willing to take over this article and rework it, and eventually nominate it as a Good Article. However, (in my opinion) the article needs a lot of work to it, which will take time especially since I won't be able to get to some of my sources until christmas when I finish university. If all involved would be agreeable to this, I would withdraw the nomination of the article and set to work on it immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that websites like any source have to be checked for their reliability. If it's in question other sources should be used or the disputed content removed. By no means are books a superior source, but some sources are quality material and others not. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, I want to know who the "experts" involved in the making of the doc are. Based on the overall questionable quality of TV docs I've seen, tho, I'm with Skinny: no go. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer): The documentary per se was a regular production of the Military Channel or History Channel, and the contributors were three regulars which individually are and were well established in their profession. (Specifics not recorded, but it'll repeat someday, I'm sure.)

For Example... being another program wherein one such panel member is expert weaponologist and Milt Historian of Janes publications. Such panels tend to be fixed per production company with "guest appearances" for topic specialists, and I vehemently disagree that such programs which are typically 'on topic' are poor sources...

I don't work for Janes, but having 30 years in the Navy CAN appreciate someone has impressive expertize, or not. and no where is it written that someone needs have a degree to know what the heck his subject is about. Quite a few NCO's out there that would put most Phd's to shame!

• In this case, the factoid in question is itself omittable... who the Germans obtained the sample they then copied really comes down to trivia, and for the fact one source disagrees with the broadcast, means our article needs cite the documentary and AGF it's researchers. Not too hard. // FrankB 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a documentary used in a ref somewhere for Iowa-class battleship? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would still be happier using print sources rather than documentaries; they can be accessed by all via libraries, wheras I, as a British citizen, cannot receive Weaponology as it's an American documentary. The sources used by each source can also be checked easily via footnotes and bibliography, whilst the documentaries do not have any such way to check their sources, AGF or not. Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References comments (this version)
- Ref #1 - documentary debate is above...
- Ref #2, 5 and 11 - what qualifies bayonetstrength.150m.com as a reliable source?
- Ref #3 and 4 - can be combined using WP:REFNAME.
- Ref #7 and 12 - should be removed, as it is a personal website.
- Ref #14, 16, 17 and 19 - can be combined with REFNAME.
- Ref #18 and 20 - can be combined with REFNAME
- Ref #22 - what makes diggerhistory.info a reliable source?
- Ref #25 - needs a page number.
- I do don't even know if it is used, as there are no in-text citations to it, but what makes "Anti-Tank Rocket M6 Bazooka" a reliable source? ([1]) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm compiling a list of references I'll use for the article, if it's agreed I can take over the article and withdraw the nom to work on it. I'll add to it as and when I can, but here it is:

Weeks, John (1975). Men Against Tanks: A History of Anti-Tank Warfare. New York City, New York: Mason Charter, 189.
Macksey, Kenneth; John H. Batchelor (1970). Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle. Scribners, 160. ISBN 684-13651-1.
Perrett, Bryan (1995). Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare Case Studies. London, United Kingdom: Brockhampton Press, 209. ISBN 1-86019-954-2.
Bishop, Chris (2002). The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II: The Comprehensive Guide to Over 1,500 Weapons Systems, Including Tanks, Small Arms, Warplanes, Artillery, Ships and Submarines. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1586637622.
Hogg, Ian. V (1997). Tank Killing: Anti-tank Warfare by Men and Machines. Sarpedon
Rottman et al (2005) World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics. Osprey Publishing
Green, Michael and Green, Gladys, Weapons of Patton's Armies, Zenith Imprint Press (2000) ISBN 0760308217,

Withdrawing per request[edit]

Per the above, and request on my talk, withdrawing GA nomination, since someone is interested in giving it TLC as needed. All I can say is it was certainly beyond Start class. // FrankB 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. I'll gather my books up and give it some TLC as soon as I can (but don't worry if nothing happens for a few weeks, I gotta do my uni work as well!) Skinny87 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]