Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Project Waler/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2022 [1].

Project Waler[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Waler was a failed attempt by the Australian Army to replace its ageing M113 armoured personnel carriers with more capable types. The project began in 1980 and never had clear goals. The Army favoured the largest and most expensive designs that were submitted as part of its focus on conventional warfare while the government preferred smaller and more mobile types suited to stopping raids on northern Australia. This led to cost blow outs and the cancellation of the project in 1985. The M113s were eventually upgraded instead, and continue to soldier on despite being obsolete. A new project to replace them is currently underway, but is also proving highly expensive and at risk of cancellation as a result.

I developed this article in 2021 as an offshoot from the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service article I developed to FA status. It passed a GA nomination in August 2021 and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review later that month. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved. It is a little patchier than the other articles than I've brought to FAC due to the limited sourcing on this topic, but I think that it's comprehensive. Interestingly, it has been identified as the best work on the topic in some of the sources I've looked at over recent months! Thank you in advance for your consideration of the article and comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support[edit]

This looks interesting and I'll recuse to review. Please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Wednesday. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The New Zealand Army is believed to have held discussions with the Australian Army regarding about joining the project as a means of replacing its fleet of M113s." - believed by whom? Is this a general view or just the belief of the source's author?
    • I think I was overly caveating the source - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do sources indicate why the costs kept rising? Increasing standards or bad front-end estimates and budgeting or some other reason?
    • Not explicitly, but they note that the Army appears to have under-estimated the cost of the project and was taken by surprise by the results of the studies as a result, and that the Army also opted for the most expensive designs during the scoping process - this is covered in the article. The article also notes that the other services were also pursuing unrealistic force structures at this time (the Navy wanted a new aircraft carrier it couldn't afford, for instance). I've included everything I could find on this topic, as it's clearly a key issue in the whole saga. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Land Combat Vehicle System". Department of Defence. Retrieved 16 November 2019." - is this link dead or just a result of an American being blocked from accessing Aussie DoD websites?
    • It looks like the webpage was moved earlier this year as part of an update (the Australian Department of Defence and armed services are constantly blowing up and rebuilding their websites and rarely leave redirects). I've replaced it with the current page, which is more up to date. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's in excellent shape, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN. Great article. A few nitpicks:

  • in the lead, I think it is worth mentioning that the ASLAVs did not replace M113 APCs, but M113 recce variants. AFAIK, not being a turrethead.
    • Good point; done. That said, there weren't any significant differences between most of the cavalry units' M113s and those assigned to transport infantry - the Army just called them different things (technically all the Army's M113 APCs were the 'light reconnaissance vehicle' variant). The exception was a small number of M113s fitted with radar. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest instead of "Force structure design was hampered by unclear strategic guidance and budget limitations though", you go with something that doesn't end with "though". Perhaps "However, force structure design was hampered by unclear strategic guidance and budget limitations."
  • suggest instead of "it did not believe that there was a genuine threat of invasion" you go with something like "there was an institutional belief that there was no genuine threat of invasion."
  • "The Ddepartment"?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest instead of "Tenders were sought for IFVs to replace the M113s in 2018.", perhaps "In 2018, tenders were sought for IFVs to replace the M113s."
  • "A December 1985 editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald judged in 1985"? 1985 twice?
    • Once seems enough - fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Not to be pedantic, but File:M113s of B Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment during Operation Cung Chung, June 1970.jpg's licence implies that it was put into the public domain while the source implies that a copyright lapsed. Everything else (licences, sources, image placement) seems OK, I assume there are no compatibly licenced blueprints or design ideas? ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this review. The image is in the PD as copyright has expired (as an Australian government image older than 50 years) - I've updated the details at Commons. The very small number of images of the proposed designs in circulation are still under copyright unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I presume that none of these designs would satisfy the WP:NFCC#8 rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so given the RS that says that the ASLAV and Marder vehicles were similar to the designs considered as part of Project Waler. We have lots of free photos of both types. The images I've seen of the Waler designs were very simple, and seem to be not much more than concept illustrations and models. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

This nomination seems to be ticking along nicely, but would benefit from a review from a non-MilHist orientated editor with an eye on how comprehensible it is to a non-specialist audience. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'll take the source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Unless I've missed something there seems to be inconsistency re. Newspapers.com links/formatting:
    • "Killen comes to defence of local car industry" has a link and a page number but no Via parameter and appears to require a subscription-needed parameter.
    • ""Army has suffered in defence strategy", "Back to drawing board" and "Loose lips sink state ships" have no links (and no page numbers) even though they employ the Via parameter and mention the website.
    • If possible I think the best bet is consistently include everything, i.e. article link, page number, Via parameter and subscription-needed parameter.
  • The Defence of Australia, 1987 link doesn't take you to the source directly.
  • "Half a Century's Service" link doesn't work.
    • Also moved, again, by Defence: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • Knowing Nick's research skills I wasn't expecting many concerns here and my only query is re. "New Zealand Defence Policy Under Labour" -- this appears to relate to a Masters degree and, if I recall correctly, we generally only use these if by a published author, is that the case here?
    • Yep - the author Peter Jennings is a leading Australian defence expert, having led the Australian Strategic Policy Institute for 10 years (during which he authored a lot of works) after having served in a range of senior roles in the Department of Defence, including as one of the department's deputy secretaries. It seems safe to assume his masters thesis was pretty good given the subsequent career! Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for these comments Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nick, generally I'd check for myself on the author's credentials but given it's not an unusual name I figured it was simpler to ask...! Happy with all responses/actions, I think we're good here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Nick, this article is very comprehensible to this non-MilHist member. My list of minor typos and suggestions follows. As always, feel free to ignore anything not worthwhile...

  • proposals were sought from companies during 1981 - is that intentionally broad? military vehicle manufacturers? (there's a cat for Military vehicle manufacturers but no article?)
    • Yes, as the government was willing to accept pretty much any proposal at this stage with companies being encouraged to team up to develop them. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • feasible to build the armoured fighting vehicles in Australia - just 'the vehicles' would be enough? (Or AFVs)
  • cancelled by the Australian Government in July - should all the mentions of Australian Government have a lowercase g?
    • No - the usual usage these days is to capitalise Australian and Government. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • were replaced by ASLAV wheeled - maybe this acronym should be written out in full on first use? (I had to click on link to understand). If not in lede then later but it doesn't appear again until Aftermath section.
    • They're always called ASLAVs, so it doesn't really function as an acronym (much as QANTAS is no longer an acronym). Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Australian Government launched - g
  • launched a new project to replace them in 2018. - ambiguous? Is that 'launched a new project in 2018 to replace them' ?
    • Much better thanks - done. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian Government placed its - g
  • The Australian Army began preparing - move AA link to previous para, then just Army here
  • acquiring Australian-built light armoured fighting vehicles to - add (AFVs), ie acronym beyond lede?
  • vehicles to replace the M113s in 1973 - its M113s
  • a formal staff target that set out the goals for the project- what's a staff target?
    • Tweaked the wording to clarify. They're essentially documents formally specifying what the goals of the project are. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • using wheeled or tracked armoured vehicles - pipe wlink Continuous track
  • There was not universal support for Project Waler within the Army though. - Maybe me but ending sentence with "though" reads strangely. There was not, though (or however), universal support for Project
  • carrying radar and - radar systems/equipment?
    • Likely, but the source just says 'radar'. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • opportunities to practice conventional - typo practise
    • Done 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • 1981–1982 financial year - move fin yr link up to "during the 1963–1964 financial year" in Background section
  • It was hoped that the Project Waler vehicles could be sold for export - remove "the"? add also ie could also be sold
    • Tweaked. I think that having 'also' in the first sentence of a para is unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projct Waler was identified - typo
  • with the Australian Government as a - g (or is "with the Australian Government even necessary)
    • I think who it discussed this with s needed for context Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • means of replacing its fleet of M113s - add own ie its own fleet
  • identified, in a broad sense, the - maybe 'broadly identified'
  • intended to be a four phase process - hyphen four-phase
  • The lead contractor for each - pipe redlink to General contractor though is not a particularly good article but seems to be talking about same thing?
    • That article is construction-focused, and the concept seems a bit different. Lead contractors in the defence industry have ultimate responsibility for delivering projects, not just coordinating other companies. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • request but complemented the company - complimented
  • Three proposals were selected for further consideration in July 1982. - ambiguous? Three proposals were selected in July 1982 for further consideration.?
  • firms SOFMA and GIAT and Goninan which was teamed with the American FMC Corporation. - I think an Oxford comma would help here ie after GIAT
  • including tracked and wheeled vehicles - tracked and wheeled variants?
    • It seems that they could submit totally different vehicle designs from the sources. There's a reason this project failed! Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in early 1983.[20] In December 1983 the Minister - in December that year
  • announced that they had confirmed - clarify who is "they", the department or govt?
    • The studies did - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 1985 - add link (ie move from second mention in next section)
  • was expected to cost $800 million - was now expected (ie just to emphasise the progressive growth in cost)
  • The Age stated in the same year- link
  • The Department of Defence's Material Research Laboratories - Materials plural
    • That was it's name - see [2]. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • hmm, I had come across Defence Science and Technology Group, so then looked online and saw this and this and this, all with plural. And then from the ref url, their link to Material Research Laboratories goes to the EOAS, then Find Organisations and groups --> gives Materials Research Laboratories (1974 - 1994). Any possibility that it's a typo on the unimelb index? JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That seems very likely - changed to Materials Research Laboratories Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • of North Western Australia was - is that North West Australia (or if broader remove caps?)
    • Broader than WA, I suspect - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • factors to consider when - tense tweak 'to be considered'
  • as a cost savings measure - hyphen cost-savings
  • The Sydney Morning Herald reported - remove link per above
  • reported that a five year deferral was - add hyphen five-year
  • The Canberra Times reported that it had proven - CT is already linked
  • The analyst Stanley S. Schaetzel - say what sort of analyst? military, defence, economic?
    • Defence industry - added Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and greatly under-estimated its cost - and had greatly
  • and greatly under-estimated its cost - one word underestimated
  • being carried by the RAAF's C-130 Hercules transport - RAAF not yet explained
    • Added earlier in the article where the air force is referred to Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that they have the "capacity ... to keep going for a period - maybe to avoid needing an ellipsis, change to that they have the capacity "to keep going for a period
  • this area was not needed as the Army needed to focus - 2x needed, maybe 'required' or 'necessary' for the first needed
  • The 1987 Defence White Paper, which was - article isn't italicised (nor 2016 though Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030 is
    • Tweaked. It was actually called The Defence of Australia but is commonly known as the 1987 defence white paper (sometimes in caps, sometimes not - Kim Beazley recently didn't use them [3] so I'll go with that). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • would also see it transferred - it? the regiment?
  • where British Aerospace undertook - is that British Aerospace Australia (ie BAE Systems Australia)?
  • by the company Tenix - Tenix Defence? (it mentions M113s)
  • The Australian Government initially planned - g
  • The number of IFVs be purchased - insert to
  • "objectives were over ambitious" v "initiating an over-ambitious" ie hyphen consistency
  • all three of the three large scale attempts - 2x "three" intentional?

references - citations - works

  • Citation 50 "Ministerial statement". Hansard. - That looks odd being a cite for what Sinclair said (in reply to Ministerial Statement by Beazley) but I have no suggestion.
    • Yes, it's clunky but reflects the titles used in the Parliament of Australia website which is very clunky. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camp - no location, add Canberra?
  • Department of Defence (2012) - the url bounces to a Budgets contents page? refine link?
  • Jennings, Peter - add location? (other ANUs have Canberra)
  • Possible cat Category:Military acquisition
    • That cat seems too broad here. I've added Category:Military projects (the parent cat of Category:Abandoned military projects of Australia) to it though. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency - there's some accessdate and authorlink parameters that need hyphens if it matters
    • Is this just a back end thing? The way stuff displays in the article seems consistent. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks Nick. JennyOz (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JennyOz: many thanks for this review, and sorry for my slow response. I think that I may have now addressed all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Nick for tweaks and explainers. I will be very happy to s'port but just have one very minor last question re Material/s, added above. JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Jenny, I've answered the question above - I think you're correct Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks again, especially for tolerance! JennyOz (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Project_Waler/archive1&oldid=1122971944"