Talk:BMD-3/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jrcrin001 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE:: Author reverted lede change. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead - Lede too long. I moved a portion to the development section. Looks good otherwise. Jrcrin001 (talk ''' 05:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks good to me, but I would like a second opinion thus it is on hold. This is my first attempt at GA review. Still concerned about the lede as mentioned above. This was nominated by Al Khazar on 1 Oct 2014 but not listed as a GA nominee on article talk page. Article had been rated Start but it was easily B class so I updated that. So other steps may be missing? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not checked it thoroughly for content, but it is not too long. For info on lead standards, see WP:LEADLENGTH.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A good article is— 1.Well-written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. - Yes
 * Looks good. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

2.Verifiable with no original research: a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; b.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and c.it contains no original research. = yes
 * Appears to have no significant problems. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). = yes
 * Good coverage, looks taut. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. = yes
 * No problems seen. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. = yes
 * okay. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions= yes
 * Adequate. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment
Jrcrin001, since it seems you want a second opinion on this, the only status the GA nominee template should have is "2ndopinion"—there should only ever be one "status" field at one time, and that's the one needed to call attention to the fact that the review needs someone else to look at it. (Multiple status fields only confuse the bots that put out the notices, since they're only allowed to pick one status.)

It's very clear to me that there is a significant issue with the lead. According to WP:LEAD, specifically the WP:MOSINTRO section, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. While an article of this size should have two or three paragraphs, not one (see WP:LEADLENGTH), it's what's in them that matters, and there's a lot of detail in the second and third paragraphs that belongs in the body of the article, while a summary of what's in the entire body is what should be in the intro.

I'm frankly alarmed by the number of identical phrases between the article and the second source at armyrecognition.com; see the Duplication detector report. I haven't checked any other sources, but I see no evidence that the material on this site is in the public domain or given any kind of free-use license. Copyright is one of the key criteria of number 1 in your review above, and the check I did is one of those you should have done with the highly cited online sources, with a spot check on some of the others.

Finally, it's a very rare article that doesn't have any grammatical issues, prose shortcomings, or simply misspellings and the like. These should be pointed out during a review, assuming you don't fix them yourself as you go along. I found a puzzling phrase at the end of the first sentence in the second paragraph of "Engine and mobility": and in a sea state of up to three. I couldn't tell whether "three" meant 3 km/h or some other unexplained "three", and I couldn't find anything about it in the listed source—this is the sort of thing you point out and ask for clarification or rewording. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: a "close paraphrasing" template has been added to the article. So long as that template remains, or indeed any close paraphrasing issues remain, this nomination cannot pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a side note on the sea state line - a sea state of three would be one with waves between half a meter and 1.25 meters in height. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Note
I recently rewrote most of the article to eliminate the close paraphrasing. Khazar (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Significant and clear close paraphrasing still remains, and I see that the reviewer of another of your nominations, BMPT Terminator, has noted close paraphrasing of armyrecognition.com in that article as well. My recommendation to Jrcrin001 is that the nomination be closed as unsuccessful due to continuing issues with close paraphrasing. If Jrcrin001 has not returned to this nomination in the next several days and clear close paraphrasing remains, I'll close it myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed GA
My apologies. My skills and understanding of the GA process did not meet the needs. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)