Wikipedia:Peer review/Junkers Ju 87/archive1

Junkers Ju 87

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed as GA and the reviewing editor suggested it was a stron article that might make FA status. I would like to know what (if anything) needs to be done to get it there.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * MisterBee1966
 * Rudel as most highly decorated soldier of the German Wehrmacht. This needs a citation
 * sank the Soviet battleship Marat. This might draw some discussion. To some she was sunk, to others she was immobilized.
 * Kriegsmarine, you may want to add that this is the German Navy
 * The article is not consistent when using metric untis versus imperial units. While speed, distances and altitude are stated in metric as well as in imperial units, weight and volume is given in metric only.
 * Some auditors like to see us translate German ranks and state the equivalent US/British equivalent. This applies to may other German words used in this article too. I don't always know how to address this best.
 * It is Tempelhof not Templehof
 * 37 mm cannons: Already early in the war this weapon was considered inappropriate as an anti tank weapon for the infantry. You may want to elaborate a bit on why it was more suited as an airborne weapon three years later (use of newly developed Tungsten carbide ammunition as well as the fact that the slanted armor of the T-34 was useless in the typical approach of the Ju 87 from the rear; you know what I mean)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Note that this article is 12,000+ words. Suggest breaking it down into subarticles.
 * Current ref 58 is a bare url with no publisher or last access date. Needs to have a formatted link title and the publisher and the date it was last accessed. ALso, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 152 needs a publisher and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, thank you both. Most of the points raised so far should not be a problem. I really didn't want to split the article, as I think is okay as it is. I will correct the above, but I don't think I'll go for FA or AC yet. Dapi89 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)