Talk:M8 armored gun system/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I'm starting to read this article and will review it shortly.VR _talk 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Schierbecker some comments before I start the review:[reply]

Can we clarify what this means? "By 1992 the program was its top-priority development program". Top priority for who and among what class of programs? There is also no source for this claim and it is not repeated in the body, so should it be in the lead?
"the MGS system lacked the capability to be airdropped." But earlier in the lead it says it was meant to be airdropped. Was this functionality removed or it never materialized? If so, explain.
"The bids ranged from a high of $189 million for GDLS–Teledyne and a low of $92 million for Hägglunds" what were these bids for? Just the R&D work? For delivery a certain quantity of platforms? How many?
The first part of the Development section reads a lot like a timeline. Can you merge small paragraphs and write this as prose?
By ACR do you mean "Armored cavalry regiment"? I think all abbreviations (except the obvious ones) should be explained on first usage.
"The Government Accounting Office denied UDLP's protest of the award in April 2001." What was UDLP's reason for protesting?
I'm confused by the last paragraph in the "Proposed revivals" section. Did BAE systems decide to build prototypes of the M8 AGS and enter it into the competition for the Mobile Protected Firepower program?
Can we refer to the topic of the article as "M8 AGS" instead of simply "AGS"? Because the latter can also refer to the Armored Gun System program.

I'll read the rest of the article next and give feedback on that soon.VR _talk 05:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that the table under "Comparison of tanks" doesn't include the weight given that was such an important attribute of the M8.VR _talk 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The article is well written and nearly a GA, just needs a few improvements.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Fairly well written, but several points need to be addressed (they have been listed above as bullet points). Addressing those points will make the article understandable to a broad audience (see WP:TECHNICAL).
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The sources used for the article aren't scholarly and most don't seem to be peer-reviewed. But in my opinion they should be considered reliable enough. The authors are either historians or military officers. AFAIK, these are the most common sources on military systems, especially those that never entered mass production. At first glance I don't see any WP:COI sources. The article is well sourced and I don't see any OR. Earwig says "Violation Unlikely".
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article looks fairly comprehensive. However, I didn't find much coverage of a political component here. From what I know, potential military acquisitions are overseen by Congress. Was there any controversy over this project's cancellation? If so, it should be mentioned. The article currently is entirely technical. Also please address the points about coverage above.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I would prefer more detailed captions. For example, where you write "An AGS with level III armor" maybe point out features that enable the viewer to tell which armor it has? Like add something like "Notice the extra plating around the turret". Also is the autoloader diagram a general one or specific to the M8? If so, specify.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Review put on hold pending resolution of above issues.

VR _talk 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. I will probably put in some more work Sunday. Schierbecker (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have now addressed most of your comments, User:Vice regent.
"By 1992 the program was its top-priority development program" Fixed This statement was a little inaccurate. It was one of the Army's top priorities.
"the MGS system lacked the capability to be airdropped." "MGS" refers to the 2000s Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle program. I have clarified this by making the acronyms a little more prominent.
"The bids ranged from a high of $189 million for GDLS–Teledyne and a low of $92 million for Hägglunds" Clarified.
By ACR do you mean "Armored cavalry regiment"? I think all abbreviations (except the obvious ones) should be explained on first usage. Done
"What was UDLP's reason for protesting? Done
I'm confused by the last paragraph in the "Proposed revivals" section... Yes. Clarified.
Can we refer to the topic of the article as "M8 AGS" instead of simply "AGS"? I will do that for now, except where it is anachronistic. Might change my mind later.
I'm surprised that the table under "Comparison of tanks" doesn't include the weight... It's in there under "Weight, Combat Loaded". You just missed it :).
political component Added some specific Congressmembers comments and the Pentagon's response.
captions Done

I made many other changes too. Let me know if you have any other questions. Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I also spot checked some sources for verifiability. I'm passing the article.14:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for reviewing. :). Schierbecker (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]