Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arena Active Protection System


 * 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.

Arena Active Protection System

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a short article, on a simple topic with no a lot of information (well, there's not that much to cover). I "expanded" it and referenced it, and re-wrote it to improve the prose. I believe it meets the qualifications for A-class. Ultimately, I might push it for a FAC (I've seen shorter articles go to FAC), although this depends. First thing is first, though - the ACR. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support


 * 'The Arena Active Protection System (APS) is an active countermeasure system developed at Russia's Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau to protect armoured fighting vehicles from light anti-tank weapons...' - '...designed to protect armoured fighting vehicles...'
 * The third paragraph of the lead is really more of a sentence; I'd recommend either merging with the second paragraph or expanding it.
 * 'The development of the system was stimulated in large part to the introduction of new high explosive anti-tank warheads.' - '...stimulated in large part by...'
 * 'Drozd was designed to destroy the warhead before it engaged the armor of the vehicle which was being attacked' - engaged sounds better as penetrated
 * 'It was composed of three main parts, including two launcher arrays on either side of the turret and an auxiliary power unit to the rear of the turret.[5] The arrays are controlled by two millimeter–wave radar antennae. The system uses a 19 kilograms (42 lb), 107 millimeters (4.2 in) cone–shaped fragmentation warhead' - these two sentences move from past to present tense, one only please - I would remain with past.
 * 'About 250 Drozd systems were manufactured, all of which were installed on the T-55 belong to the Soviet Union's naval infantry - ...all of which were installed on T-55 main battle tanks belonging to the Soviet Union's naval infantry', and please wikilink to naval infantry
 * 'It was first mounted on a T-80U in 1989, and latter showcased on a T-72B, renamed T-72BM and later T-90.' - 'latter' to 'later'
 * 'The system consists of an infra–red radiator interface station' - any way of expanding that a little to make it a little less jargon-y?
 * 'The system is activated when the laser warning system warns the tank commander' - 'alerts' instead of 'warns' to avoid repetition
 * 'According to the manufacturers, Shtora decreases the chances of a tank being hit by a an anti-tank missile' - get rid of the extra 'a'
 * 'while some which were issued reactive armor did not have the explosive charge to toggle the reaction.' - '...issued with...'
 * 'As a result, the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau developed the Arena active protection system' - can we wikilink to the designer if there's an article?
 * 'The Arena system was' - 'was' to 'is'
 * 'a digital computer toggles the use of one of 26 quick-action projectiles to intercept the incoming threat' - 26 to twenty-six
 * 'The system will engage targets within 50 meters (55 yd) of the vehicle it's defending' - 'the system engages targets...' and 'it's' to 'it is' please Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything should be taken care of! Except, naval infantry (already wikilinked), the manufacturer (no article), and I kept engaged because I don't want to generalize and say that all threats can penetrate (but they can all at least engage).  Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I was only able to find two issues:
 * Is Drozd italicized? You first italicize it, then don't, in the lead; it should be consistent.
 * You've linked Drozd twice. Make sure that this is fixed and check to make sure you haven't done it elsewhere that I missed.

Otherwise it looks good, rather short, but since it's new and Russia hasn't really used it (yet) in battle I suppose there's not much more that can be said. – Joe Nu  tter  20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; those two point should be fixed! JonCatalán(Talk) 07:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A very nice article, although short. My only issue was that reference [1] and another appear in the middle of sentences. Although i realise they are referencing specific claims, it might be better to move the reference behind punctuation and state in the reference exactly what it is referencing rather than have it break up the text in the middle of the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support


 * 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.