Talk:Centurion C-RAM

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

C-RAM test firing at night

• ... that the Centurion C-RAM (pictured) can fire more than 4500 rounds per minute? Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/pdf/2110-factsheet-c-ram.pdf
  • ALT1: ... that the American Centurion C-RAM (pictured) was developed during the Iraq war to shoot down mortar shells? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091231120809/http://defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news2105_c_ram.htm

• • Reviewed: [[]]

Created by Geardona (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

(Ping me) Geardona (talk to me?) 04:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

• I've watchlisted the article's talk page and will review this when it's kept.--Launchballer 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• This is not a full review, but the article is currently a stub and fails the WP:DYKCOMPLETE criteria. One of the reasons it is at WP:MERGEPROP is because the topic of the article is already covered more thoroughly at Phalanx CIWS#Centurion C-RAM. I think we would need to see the article significantly expanded in order to feature it at DYK. If content is merged from the Phalanx CIWS to the Centurion C-RAM article, I would argue that this isn't even a "new article". And we would need to see a 5x expansion from the prose size of the original section on this topic in the Phalanx CIWS article to feature it at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Geardona: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem, at the point it was nominated it was rated C-class, no opinion on the rating change. As for the newness, it was a new article (moved from sandbox) when I nominated it, and it seemed to me that would be acceptable as 'new' under DYK policy, I don't see anything about splits in the DYK criteria. Thank you, Geardona (talk to me?) 13:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Expanding now that it has survived, I think that a split of an article (especially given that the content is completely different) should be considered new, as mot other notable articles are mentioned at other places. I am not sure, but plan on trying to expand it to GA levels in the future (summer break) so if it is not that would be ok with me.Geardona (talk to me?) 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• New Review needed. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I did say I would review this, and I will do so in the morning.--Launchballer 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. I can't see where in the source it says that the C-RAM was specifically developed to intercept mortar shells, although perhaps I'm being blind, and ALT0 is more interesting anyway. No maintenance templates deserved and QPQ unnecessary. I am not happy with that level of whitespace in the article, please do something about this, and I've just cleared out no fewer than seven typos, please verify there are no more. Also, "Ukraine has not acquired any units yet but is negotiating with the United States to receive them" will date, and should be attributed.--Launchballer 11:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Is "Centurion C-RAM" actually the name of the weapon?

Raytheon called it Centurion Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System in their press release. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes and no, Centurion appears to be the common name, used in a couple of the other articles, but its actual name is the “Centurion Land-Based Phalanx Weapon system. Also called Centurion LBWs or Centurion C-RAM. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Stub class

The body of the article is below 1500 characters, making this a clear stub. Plus there are enough gaps in content to make this questionably not even start class.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)