Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/AMX-30

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AMX-30

This is the first article on a single tank I've worked on in probably two months, and I'm looking to take this article all the way (as usual). Any advice will be quickly implemented. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - what is it with you and these tank things? My only real suggestion is that you add citations to the infobox statistics (although I'm sure they're already in the article, it's a visual thing;) Cam ^(Chat) 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Can't see anything wrong with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think it meets A class, however I do have some suggestions;

I think the first few sentences of the necessarily lengthy lead section should give the key facts before diverting into other details. I expect most readers who know nothing about the vehicle want to know the most relevant things first. i.e main user, period of use, relative armour / armament / mobility etc. Almost a "lead section" for a long lead section.

The other issue is there is a "wall of text" effect. While it's all relevant, it's a bit intimidating to read, and also difficult to skim. I don't know if this is best resolved with more paragraph breaks, or more subsection headings to split it up into digestible chunks, a combination, or something else entirely.

Hohum (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the lead is written in such a way where it mirrors the organization of the text; whereas, there is a background, and then it goes into detail about the tank, and finally it talks about exports and combat history. The first sentence does mention that it began production in 1966, while the lead later says that most armies were replacing the tank by the 21st century; I also think that the infobox serves as a visual aid to the lead, and also states its service record. I switched the text around, so that the tank is described before its history; what do you think now? I also broke up the first paragraph into two separate paragraphs. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much improved, and serves to hook people into reading further. Good job! Hohum (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (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.