This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T28 super-heavy tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
T28 super-heavy tank was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi! I'll get the review up as soon as I can. Cheers! — the_ ed 17— 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, but I'm going to have to fail this...if you have any question, just leave a message on my talk page. As soon as you have fixed these issues, feel free to nominate it once more. — the_ ed 17— 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
On 19 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from T28 Super Heavy Tank to T28 super-heavy tank. The result of the discussion was moved. |
As there is already an article that lists all Super Heavy Tanks, why not add a box at the bottom linking all the different super heavy tanks by country, similar to articles like "German Armoured Fighting Vehicles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got a problem with this line "The T28 was designed as a counter to the German heavy tanks,[2] such as the Maus[4] and the E-100.[5] It was also set to be used for attacking the German Siegfried Line.[3]".
Both of those tanks would better be classified as Super-Heavy. Also, was there actually any indication that this was the purpose and that they weren't just built to counter the current Tiger and King Tigers? Considering how the E-100 was never produced and the Maus was also mainly just a prototype how did they know of they existed and posed a threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The infobox says it weights 95 short tons, but the comparison tables list 95 metric tonnes. Can someone look over the units for all of the table items? Thanks. — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:09 z
Was this designed to attack the Siegfried Line, or to face other super-heavy tanks. The latter seems doubtful, since the fixed gun design seems only suitable for assaulting fixed defences, and the poor mobility wouldn't even be very good for the defence. On the other hand who knows, since it doesn't seem terribly well suited for any purpose. — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:18 z
When was this project started? Was its original name T28 Super Heavy Tank, the same as its final name? — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:25 z
I'm going to be reviewing this article, but even a brief glimpse at the sources used for this article makes me raise an eyebrow. Apart from the encyclopedia referenced to Google Books and the Patton Museum, none of them look to be WP:RS. Are there no books that could be used to reference this vehicle? I'd also like to ask why each of these sources should be considered RS for a GA article - could you explain each for me? Skinny87 ( talk) 11:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ref #6
is a blog = not reliable.
:Ref #9
is not reliable/personal website without sources.
"To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"
Some could just be deleted.
etc. — Michael Z. 2008-10-20 23:32 z
(outdent) I will begin reviewing this article as soon as possible. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
1 Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct: Comments:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation: Comments:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout:
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons:
(c) it contains no original research: Pass
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Comments:
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Pass
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Pass
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pass
This could be a GA article, but I think it has a fair way to go, especially in terms of the content in the History section and overall layout of the article. I'll place this on hold for the moment and see what happens. Skinny87 ( talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What type of suspension did it actually have? HVSS, torsion-bar, leaf-spring, what? Double-track isn't appropriate. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this vehicle was at various times designated a tank or gun motor carriage by the US Army, why does the article call it a tank destroyer or say the designation "tank" is wrong? Isn't it correct by definition since the Army so designated it? Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"The Maus has an armor thickness of up to 460mm" This is very misleading because only the gun mantle had that thickness, the rest of the frontal turret was 240mm, and the front hull was 260mm.
The T28/T95 had a mantle that was almost 500mm thick, but it's left out while the Maus misleads the readers by only giving the stats for the gun mantle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
What about the T5E1 gun armour piercing capability? Does anybody have any data on this? It would be nice to include it, as I couldn't find anything on the Internet. 83.28.164.167 ( talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Specs of this tank goes for T95. T28 was faster and had lower armor. Please fix it. (I mean, better will be adding both spec. for T28 and then after that for T95, because in this state, this topic makes many historic/tank fans angry. Thanks
For example: T28 had 18km/h speed and 254mm armor. T95 had 13km/h and 300+ mm armor.
Good examples would be the Panzer VIII Maus and the IS-3. GMRE ( talk) 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Going through the table, some of it seems wrong. Particularly the caliber of the guns.
I'm not good with Wiki editing so I'm refraining from editing it myself but can someone go and look up the table and see who previously messed with those and revert it back?
120.136.5.74 ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Did some more checking: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T28_Super_Heavy_Tank&diff=542872623&oldid=542801509
Editing by 67.0.220.98 on 19:00, 8 March 2013 is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.74 ( talk)
Wouldn't it be best if the image was changed to a more high-quality one? The HDR in this one makes it very unprofessional. RDXL ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we stop deleting the pop culture section? The wikia page is fully cited. It is generally considered to be common knowledge that the T28/T95 is nicknamed the "Doom Turtle." We have citations to the company owned wiki pages of the two most popular tank games that feature the T28 each specifying that the tank attained the "Doom Turtle" nickname among online gaming communities. What more do you need to prove that it is colloquially named the "Doom Turtle." Googling 'Doom Turtle' with all cookies and previous search results cleared will immediately bring up articles about the T28/T95, this should be common knowledge to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.16.64 ( talk) 00:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:T1 Light Tank which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T28 super-heavy tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
T28 super-heavy tank was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi! I'll get the review up as soon as I can. Cheers! — the_ ed 17— 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, but I'm going to have to fail this...if you have any question, just leave a message on my talk page. As soon as you have fixed these issues, feel free to nominate it once more. — the_ ed 17— 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
On 19 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from T28 Super Heavy Tank to T28 super-heavy tank. The result of the discussion was moved. |
As there is already an article that lists all Super Heavy Tanks, why not add a box at the bottom linking all the different super heavy tanks by country, similar to articles like "German Armoured Fighting Vehicles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got a problem with this line "The T28 was designed as a counter to the German heavy tanks,[2] such as the Maus[4] and the E-100.[5] It was also set to be used for attacking the German Siegfried Line.[3]".
Both of those tanks would better be classified as Super-Heavy. Also, was there actually any indication that this was the purpose and that they weren't just built to counter the current Tiger and King Tigers? Considering how the E-100 was never produced and the Maus was also mainly just a prototype how did they know of they existed and posed a threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The infobox says it weights 95 short tons, but the comparison tables list 95 metric tonnes. Can someone look over the units for all of the table items? Thanks. — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:09 z
Was this designed to attack the Siegfried Line, or to face other super-heavy tanks. The latter seems doubtful, since the fixed gun design seems only suitable for assaulting fixed defences, and the poor mobility wouldn't even be very good for the defence. On the other hand who knows, since it doesn't seem terribly well suited for any purpose. — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:18 z
When was this project started? Was its original name T28 Super Heavy Tank, the same as its final name? — Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:25 z
I'm going to be reviewing this article, but even a brief glimpse at the sources used for this article makes me raise an eyebrow. Apart from the encyclopedia referenced to Google Books and the Patton Museum, none of them look to be WP:RS. Are there no books that could be used to reference this vehicle? I'd also like to ask why each of these sources should be considered RS for a GA article - could you explain each for me? Skinny87 ( talk) 11:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ref #6
is a blog = not reliable.
:Ref #9
is not reliable/personal website without sources.
"To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"
Some could just be deleted.
etc. — Michael Z. 2008-10-20 23:32 z
(outdent) I will begin reviewing this article as soon as possible. Skinny87 ( talk) 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
1 Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct: Comments:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation: Comments:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout:
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons:
(c) it contains no original research: Pass
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Comments:
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Pass
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Pass
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pass
This could be a GA article, but I think it has a fair way to go, especially in terms of the content in the History section and overall layout of the article. I'll place this on hold for the moment and see what happens. Skinny87 ( talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What type of suspension did it actually have? HVSS, torsion-bar, leaf-spring, what? Double-track isn't appropriate. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this vehicle was at various times designated a tank or gun motor carriage by the US Army, why does the article call it a tank destroyer or say the designation "tank" is wrong? Isn't it correct by definition since the Army so designated it? Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"The Maus has an armor thickness of up to 460mm" This is very misleading because only the gun mantle had that thickness, the rest of the frontal turret was 240mm, and the front hull was 260mm.
The T28/T95 had a mantle that was almost 500mm thick, but it's left out while the Maus misleads the readers by only giving the stats for the gun mantle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
What about the T5E1 gun armour piercing capability? Does anybody have any data on this? It would be nice to include it, as I couldn't find anything on the Internet. 83.28.164.167 ( talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Specs of this tank goes for T95. T28 was faster and had lower armor. Please fix it. (I mean, better will be adding both spec. for T28 and then after that for T95, because in this state, this topic makes many historic/tank fans angry. Thanks
For example: T28 had 18km/h speed and 254mm armor. T95 had 13km/h and 300+ mm armor.
Good examples would be the Panzer VIII Maus and the IS-3. GMRE ( talk) 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Going through the table, some of it seems wrong. Particularly the caliber of the guns.
I'm not good with Wiki editing so I'm refraining from editing it myself but can someone go and look up the table and see who previously messed with those and revert it back?
120.136.5.74 ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Did some more checking: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=T28_Super_Heavy_Tank&diff=542872623&oldid=542801509
Editing by 67.0.220.98 on 19:00, 8 March 2013 is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.74 ( talk)
Wouldn't it be best if the image was changed to a more high-quality one? The HDR in this one makes it very unprofessional. RDXL ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we stop deleting the pop culture section? The wikia page is fully cited. It is generally considered to be common knowledge that the T28/T95 is nicknamed the "Doom Turtle." We have citations to the company owned wiki pages of the two most popular tank games that feature the T28 each specifying that the tank attained the "Doom Turtle" nickname among online gaming communities. What more do you need to prove that it is colloquially named the "Doom Turtle." Googling 'Doom Turtle' with all cookies and previous search results cleared will immediately bring up articles about the T28/T95, this should be common knowledge to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.16.64 ( talk) 00:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:T1 Light Tank which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)