Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Heuschrecke 10/Archive 1

Heuschrecke 10
I have nominated this article, because I believe that it is quite good, and I know that all of you may scream "longer!", but I have looked for more information than is contained, and I could not find any, at least not where I have searched. I also believe that this article is of great quality. &lt; DREAMAFTER &gt; &lt; TALK &gt; 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
The major thing that stands out is the point raised during the A-Class review: for a topic of this age, one would expect publications (books, journals, etc.) to be available, rather than having websites as the only sources. Further, the sites used need to be examined to ensure that they are reputable historical sources (see WP:MILMOS); I would be surprised if, for example, the Fortune City site met that definition. ✅

Beyond that, this looks pretty good. Is there any information available regarding the fate of the prototypes? (Obviously at least one survived, as we have a photo of it; but any additional detail would be good.)

On a more minor note, the Commons link should be moved closer to the bottom of the article, and the armour table needs to be cited. ✅

Keep up the good work! Kirill 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Awotter
The only quibble I have with the article (other than that pink monster j/k) is you might want to consider including the relevant foreign language text for any citation that might be questioned as a footnote within the reference itself. That way the text can easily be checked via a translator program. No biggie, but it will help if you get conflicting specs or conclusions. Awotter (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify? How would I include the relevant text? Any other suggestions? &lt; DREAMAFTER &gt; &lt; TALK &gt; 02:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I believe. Dreamafter ⇔ 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)