320 mm Type 98 mortar 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 30, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Japanese Army used
320 mm mortars to frighten
American Marines during the
Battle of Iwo Jima? |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review by Binksternet
I will be reviewing this article. Binksternet ( talk) 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm heading off to a late holiday vacation for a few days but I'll leave this GA Review open so that you guys can work on the points I've brought up. I might have a chance to continue the review during my vacation but I'll certainly check on it on January 5th when I'm back. Binksternet ( talk) 05:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has suffered from a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth it seems. I found it today to be in a sorry state of competing statements about all different weapons, when the original DYI, and article, was about a specific Japanese weapon. Instead of simply clipping out the spoiler, every other example of the 320 was put INTO the intro, and now it makes no sense at all.
We need to decide what this article is about: is this about the Japanese WWII weapon, or is it about any 320 mm mortar? Either choice is fine, we just need to select one. I believe that the relatively short length of this article recommends the later choice: we could add in sub-sections for all of the other weapons without making this page too large. That's based on the assumption that the other weapons are similarly or even less famous than this one.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
320 mm Type 98 mortar 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 30, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Japanese Army used
320 mm mortars to frighten
American Marines during the
Battle of Iwo Jima? |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review by Binksternet
I will be reviewing this article. Binksternet ( talk) 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm heading off to a late holiday vacation for a few days but I'll leave this GA Review open so that you guys can work on the points I've brought up. I might have a chance to continue the review during my vacation but I'll certainly check on it on January 5th when I'm back. Binksternet ( talk) 05:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has suffered from a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth it seems. I found it today to be in a sorry state of competing statements about all different weapons, when the original DYI, and article, was about a specific Japanese weapon. Instead of simply clipping out the spoiler, every other example of the 320 was put INTO the intro, and now it makes no sense at all.
We need to decide what this article is about: is this about the Japanese WWII weapon, or is it about any 320 mm mortar? Either choice is fine, we just need to select one. I believe that the relatively short length of this article recommends the later choice: we could add in sub-sections for all of the other weapons without making this page too large. That's based on the assumption that the other weapons are similarly or even less famous than this one.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)