Talk:122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30)

Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article passes all the criteria for a good article. -Flubeca (t) 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) -Flubeca (t) 23:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

I have undertaken a copyedit to remove some serious grammar errors (probably he result of an inexact translation) and the article is not far off. However there were one or two point, listed below that need to be explained before this will pass as a GA.

"The suspension was locking automatically when swinging the trails open." - I have no idea what this means.

The section "Interesting facts about M-30 howitzer" in unencyclopedic and should be broken up with the relevant information going in the relevant section.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

This article does not have enough inline citations, please see the tags I have added to the article. In addition, the internet inline sources are improperly formatted. Please see citations section below.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

3. It is stable.

   

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I don't know how this article had become a GA in the first place. I never nominated it and I knew it has problems which I hoped to address "perhaps, one day". Well, perhaps the day has come. :)

I removed the "interesting facts" section and reformatted web links.

The awkward phrase about suspension was supposed to mean the following. The carriage of M-30 was fitted with leaf spring suspension, in order to allow higher transportation speed. However, in firing position suspension springs would cause the gun to rock, hurting its accuracy. To prevent it, the carriage of the M-30 was built in such a way that opening trails locked the suspension, effectively making it rigid.

As for inline citation, there is a little problem here. I'm not really the author, the article is mostly a translation from ruWiki, so... I'll try to take a look at some of the sources though... Bukvoed (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any improvements you can make would be appreciated. By the way, when you are done here, 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) could use a look. It just about passes for GA but could use some tidying and sourcing if possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I seems I have to postpone it :(. I guess the article will spend some time in B class again. Bukvoed (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How long do you need? I can certainly hold off delisting for several weeks if it gives you time to get round to this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, for some reason I didn't see your comment in my watchlist. It's unlikely I'll be able to improve the article in several weeks. Bukvoed (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry I'm going to have to fail this then. Good luck for the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

Thanks. Bukvoed (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909091952/https://www.sinodefence.com:80/army/armour/type63.asp to https://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/type63.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)