The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At long last, I am nominating the other big, huge, and heavy WWI German siege gun for A-Class review. Although I don't think it's ready for FAC because it relies primarily on a single source (though written on the English-language expert as far as I am aware), I do think it's ready for A-Class, as it's pretty much done otherwise. –
♠Vami_IV†♠02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Panzerfort Loncin.jpg since this is on commons it needs German license tag
Vami_IV, I see the issue around the Great Dictator image has been redundant because it has been deleted from the article, perhaps this tag {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} may resolve the issue regarding the Panzerfort image?
Zawed (
talk)
10:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
File:Great Dictator - The Big Bertha - Cannon in the First World War.JPG is this footage original to the Great Dictator movie? (
t ·
c) buidhe14:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
"but known as the Beta-Gerät to disguise its purpose as a siege gun" - is it worth glossing what exactly "Beta Gerat" indicated?
"Gerät" is "device"; the Germans knew they couldn't hide these giant guns entirely, so they did a lot of obfuscation to still get the drop on the French and Belgians. –
♠Vamí_IV†♠06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)reply
" the M-Gerät weighed 42.6 metric tons (42.6 t)" - I may be about to show stupidity here, but the conversion is converting between tonnes and metric tons, which our article on the subject suggests are the same thing? (I've only ever been taught the 2000 lb one, not sure if that's a ton, a long ton, or a short ton)
Can it be directly stated that they didn't see service on the Eastern Front after the offensive in 1915?
Yes. Kind of. Romanych & Rupp say that their last use in 1915 was in Serbia, and then moves all the big guns back to the West for Verdun. –
♠Vamí_IV†♠06:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)reply
"from 2011 to 2019" - both of the sources predate 2019 so that ending date isn't supported by the cites
Vami, any comment on the one remaining point? I'd be okay with just removing the not fully-supported date range, as it's fairly incidental.
Hog FarmTalk19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
"The armour-piercing shell was designed to smash through concrete and metal armour, but was largely ineffective against reinforced concrete." Delete comma
"partnership was a 30.5 cm (12.0 in) mortar" --> "partnership was a 30.5-centimetre (12.0 in) mortar" This is a compound adjective, also remove the nought here.
From UNITSYMBOLS, In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit [...] is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use. My format is also the format used across
our GA+ articles on artillery. UNITSYMBOLS does not support or call for un-abbreviating these units of measurement. –
♠Vamí_IV†♠12:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
In the "General guidelines on use of units" table bellow UNITSYMBOLS it states "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens ..." and uses "a five-day holiday", "a five-cubic-foot box" and "a 10-centimeter blade" as examples. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk)
15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Spot checks done on the webcite links, and these are OK. I couldn't access the Economist article as it is behind a paywall. Happy to AGF on the print sources given nominator's history.
In the further reading, ISBNs are given with dashes but not in the references section. I would suggest putting all of the further reading titles into the cite book template for consistency with those in the references section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.