Talk:Wolf Armoured Vehicle

Failed GA
This article has failed GA, mainly because it lacks reliable sources to begin with.
 * israeli-weapons.com is not a reliable source. There is no information on who is resposnible for this website and what their qualifications and credentials. I did a poke around the website and watched the history cartoon about the creation. Somehow a website with a slapstick cartoon with comments "ahahaha these Arabs are crazy" isn't a good sign at all
 * The cites that are there need to be formatted correctly with publisher and dates and so forth in any case. SEe cite web for an example
 * Many of the paragraphs in the article are one line and need expanding or merging into proper paragraphs
 * Inline cites need to be placed directly after the punctuation, with no space.
 * The article reads very POV and almost like a marketing pamphlet for armoured vehicles. Comments like "well-equipped with a double air conditioning system, comfortable seats and all the items a soldier might need." are POV, and words like well-equipped should simply be omitted.
 * "the vehicle does not suffer from engine overheating or handling problems" - is this a promise that this vehicle is invulnerable to mechanical failure???
 * Do not use contractions
 * "The Israeli Ministry of Defense ordered 150 Wolf Armored Vehicles from Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd. [7] and Hatehof. " -> broken sentence
 * Article lacks info about cost, tendering process of the vehicle and its history and evolution from past models.
 * IDF should be wikilinked in the lead.
 * Has this been used in military operations yet?

Regards,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Assessment

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Further comments on the assessment
Therefore, due to the substantial amounts of work needing to be done to the article, I am failing this article, and I am requesting a peer review which should hopefully bring not only other editors to the page, but also new ideas to help assert that notability. I would like to see this article be corrected inline with at least some of the comments in the next few days, to show that the nominator acknowledges the faults with the article. I am slightly surprised why the above GA review has been striked through, most of the issues there, still seem to be present. And finally, I wish you all the best with the article. Thank you. Regards, &mdash; Rudget Contributions 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does assert notability (as it's in service the IDF, a highly notable military force), but the article at the moment doesn't assert that notability, through either its prose or its references. I seriously doubt, as did Blnguyen, whether the sources that are used, are reliable and independent. Currently, the majority of the sources pertain to either producers of the car, with the other to a independent source (to an extent).
 * As said on my talk page (where I requested a second opinion) other editors have agreed that the content is minimal and should be expanded to help develop the article into a good article. For example, "It is a brand new concept vehicle that has no precedents. It is a combination of vehicles that have no relationship to each other, except for this vehicle". - It doesn't make sense, especially the last sentence. The reader would already seem to know it is a "brand new concept" from hints like..."It was created to provide a better handling, better protected version of the M113 (Bardelas)." and "This is currently in production, and is not currently used in any operations or wars." I'm sure you would be able to expand the article further any if there are no precedents or ancestors to the vehicle, how does it relate to other vehicles? I also saw, when editing the page last night, that the German military use it aswell, how come this is not mentioned? It would help develop the article, and show more notability, but as said, it already stands a chance of that as being a force in the IDF.
 * As the above GA reviewer states, phrases like "well-equipped with a double air conditioning system, comfortable seats and all the items a soldier might need" are almost certainly POV, and should be removed as suggested, but this does not seem to be the case.
 * The tone is rather vague and the article reads like a start-class article, not a GAC. For example, this setence (extracted from the last paragraph) "The doors are designed for a quick getaway." - There is no source provided, and it seems to come out of the blue. This line of enquiry is not developed and the reader, and certainly other editors, would become easily confused by the subject matter, and when finished, wouldn't be any the wiser. It may also be subject to what is known as original research, somethinsg a GA should not have. The nominator (who is also the main editor) should at least try to ascertain some memory to readers. After all, this is an encyclopedia so everyone should be able to read an article that uses a proportionate amount of verifiable sources, and leaves them with a little bit of knowledge.
 * Another editor which gave me a third opinion on this article said, "Most of the original parts were kept, with the only notable changes being, the rear axle and tires. - original to what?" - and I agree. I can understand that it may be original to the the F-550 chassis, as explained in the preceeding sections, but this needs to be underlined, and yet again, developed.

Wolf Armoured Vehicles in service of the georgian Special Forces
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143605&page=2

entrence with right inside wing of the Georgian Parliament in the Background


 * An unsourced photo of a largely obscured vehicle on some forum is not a reliable source. If Georgia has Wolfs then it should be very easy to find a record of the order on a Georgian governmental site, a press release from Hatehof, or some other written evidence of the procurement. I've tried and come up with nothing. In the absence of any proof or reliable source backing up the claim that Georgia has Wolfs, they cannot be listed here on Wikipedia as a user of the vehicle. Dino246 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well anyway, the Wolf is standart equipement of the Armed Forces now and not SOLELY used anymore by Special Forces. Cheers. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to back that up? I mean I've seen the photos and it might well be true but it does seem odd that the only evidence I can find on the internet links back to Wikipedia.Dino246 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wolf Armoured Vehicle in Service In Ethiopia
I added ethiopia as a user since they are in service, you can look into this ethiopia news video on youtube you can see the Wolf AV in 8:00 - 8:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NaBCSOYYCAk
 * That's not a Wolf. Looks like a Gaia Thunder to me. http://gaia-auto.com/?page_id=16 Dino246 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wolf and the M113
I'm writing this as a reserve soldier in the IDF, who has seen the Wolf from up close and inside. צחי (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You call it an Armored Personnel Carrier. This may be technically true, but it is not considered as one in the IDF. It's just an armored vehicle for fast transportation in hostile areas. It is taking the job of armored AIL Abir command car, not that of an APC.
 * 2) It is definitely not a replacement for the M113, which is still the main APC in the conventional battle field. the M133 is slowly being replaced by the Namer and IDF Achzarit APCs.

Nationstates is not a reliable source
Does anyone know why a dispatch from a worldbuilding site is listed here? I don't think someone selling virtual cars with virtual specs is a "reliable source". I don't really know how to fix it, so I guess i'll leave that to other people here. Photographerman (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)