152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) was one of theWarfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
Probably not or... yes. D-20 has ballistic identical to ML-20 (and it was direct successor of ML-20), not D-1. I'll ask my Russian colleagues about it.LostArtilleryman12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After Kirill Lokshin's suggestions I offer mergeSummary andDescription because the former part is a technical comparative analysis in fact. The last sentence ofSummary IMHO is better incorporate into introduction. Also,Surviving pieces from my POV is better to move into introduction, not toOrganization and employment - the material forIntroduction is scarce. Agree with appendingProduction to the previous chapter and renaming the result asDevelopment and production. What forTrivia, Item No. 1 and 2 is quite logical move toAmmunition, Item No. 3 will not have place, so it can be dropped (too much words to explain it sense in introduction) and for Item No. 4 I've no idea. IMHO, it is important enough but what the place can we find for it?LostArtilleryman14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with most of the suggestions. "Summary" and "trivia" can go, never liked these sections anyway :). "Production" can be converted into a subsection of "Development". But I don't like the idea of moving "surviving pieces" to the introduction, IMHO partial list of surviving guns is not important enough, it's essentially kind of "appendix", while the introduction should be an overview of major points of the article. I'd leave it as is. BTW, I've heard there is at least one D-1 in Israel, placed as a memorial piece somewhere inKiryat Haim... didn't see it with my own eyes or any photos of it though...Bukvoed10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to improve the introduction. I'm still not sure that the result is acceptable, though. And we still need some help from somebody with better english.Bukvoed13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the introduction is not bad as zero (and may be first) approximation. And I ask Megapixie to help once again for checking grammar.LostArtilleryman16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review Comments for considering 152mm M1943 D-1 gun for 'Good Article' status
Firstly, I must say that this is one of the good articles on artillery weapons in Wikipedia that I have come across. It is well developed, with references, seems quite complete in its coverage and well-organised. This is how the article fares with respect to theGood article criteria:
Well Written - I have carried out some language oriented copy-edits.
Factually accurate & verifiable - Some of the points are listed below for your improvement.
Broad in its coverage - Yes.
Neutral - Yes.
Stable - Yes.
Images have acceptable copyright status - I am in the process of checking this. I'll give you feedback later on this.
Since you have been looking for an english overview, I am taking the liberty of correcting certain language aspects. I have changed all spellings to American style to maintain consistency. However, after doing that and improving the writing of the article, the following points need to be looked into:AshLin
Thanks a lot for copyedits. The article is essentially a translation from ruWiki, so some questions / remarks cannot be immediately addressed, but we will try to improve it as much as possible.Bukvoed08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed here -
The reasons for this decision are given by Russian military historian M. Svirin as:AshLin
Commented out the paragraph. We hardly need to describe these reasons for stopping the production of M-10 here in such a detail. I'll probably move some of the text to the article about M-10.Bukvoed08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of tractors cannot be a reason to stop producing a particular weapon, as its successors too would need a prime mover as they too are towed artillery weapons.
So I feel this reason should be removed and I have commented it out.AshLin
For Russian conditions it have a lot amount of sense, but the frase is itself ambigous. The tractors mean tracked heavy vehicles. After evacuation of Kharkov Plant No.183 the production of heavy prime movers for M-10 ceased (and was resumed after WW2) and remaining vehicles were attached to tow much heavier guns such asML-20 orB-4. While D-1 is much more lighter and there was no need in heavy tracked mover, common US Studebaker 6x6 truck is quite enough.LostArtilleryman18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason seems valid. Production of M-10 was stopped in late in 1941, when RKKA was particularly short on vehicles; no immediate successor was introduced. The eventual successor, the D-1, was introduced only in 1943, after USSR received large number of lend-lease vehicles, was lighter (3,600 kg vs 4150 kg) so possibly somewhat less powerful prime movers could be used, and was employed at corps level instead of divisional (naturally, corps level units have better access to powerful prime movers).Bukvoed08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I understood it to be a wheeled vehicle like a truck. Please rephrase so that the context is understood and reintroduce.AshLin17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheRed Army rifle corps should be wikified and made into a stub. It has relevance to the development of Soviet artillery weapons during World War II besides its own relevance in the history of the Red Army. AlsoF. F. Petrov.AshLin
Ok, but if you have even just a stub someone may come and add some material to it. You are also more inclined to add some info passing by. Even oneline stub is better than nothing. I know this is not a guideline, but these actions really develop your wikiproject over time.AshLin17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which countries used the D-1 howitzer in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The gun was employed in Arab-Israeli Conflict and also in some conflicts in former republics of Soviet Union.[2]AshLin
As far as I know, the gun was not employed by IDF (at least not in any numbers). The article mentions that the gun is/was in Syrian service, so I guess it was used by Syria, possibly by other Arab states. There's a memorial piece somewhere in Israel, probably a captured one.Bukvoed08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The line in the introduction about the D-1 finding a place in computer games requires that a separate section (albeit a small one) be created for it. I have merged it in a newsection titledThe D-1 howitzer in daily life and also merged it with the surviving pieces of D-1 artillery.AshLin
You are right, its clunky. Can you suggest a better title, or merge the survivng pieces with Employment? What about the computer references - let it remain in a short section - no problem.AshLin17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the survivng pieces with Employment. Commented out the computer games paragraph - too short, the D-1 is not mentioned in the wikipedia articles about the games (also no other references so far), and as far as I understand the trend in "WikiProject Military history" is not to include "XYZ in games/books/movies)" unless the XYZ is a particularly prominent element of the respective games/books/movies.Bukvoed08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinks about computer games need to be checked to see whether they explicitly mention the D-1. In case they dont mention it in the wiki, then we need to find web links which do so and add those also as a reference.AshLin
See above.
The 'ammunition' section needs an opening sentance mentioning the range of types of ammunition available for the D-1. I have added this.AshLin
Truth be told, I feel the section is OK... but I'll think about it again. Anyway, as far as I know most of these projectiles were not developed specifically for D-1, so some rephrasing is needed.Bukvoed08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK we may say the 'D-1 had the following kinds of ammunition...' or something like it. Go ahead and rephrase. I agree, the section is OK but its always better if a person can read on the first line itself what linds of ammuntion were available.AshLin17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop me a line on my talk page when the improvements are done. I shall be reviewing again 7 days hence. All the best. Regards,AshLin15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation. I feel that my comments have been addressed and accordingly I congratulate you and other contributing editors on this 'Good article'.AshLin12:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a(references): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
Although I am still passing the article, the inline citation have two serious problems that will probably result in this article being delisted in the not too distant future. Firstly none of th book sources provide page numbers, which makes them largely useless in determining the factual accuracy of the articles and secondly the citations are placed at the end of sections, not next to the facts they are meant to corroborate.
Today one of the Russian milblogger channels mentioned reports of use of the D-1, "Безграмотные дикторы преподносят работу на фронтах гаубицы Д-1 как использование «проверенного временем» вооружения (Д-1 выпускалась с 1943 по 1949 год)."[1] I have not seen the original reporting to which this refers.Vox Sciurorum (talk)10:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A GA from 2008. I can't exactly tell if the many paragraphs with no citations are actually uncited or if they have general references (aside from the better source needed and citation needed tag). I will say, however, that the sources cited do not label any page numbers what so ever which makes it quite impossible to verify. Also, I'm not sure if this article is broad enough at all. GA cleanup lists states "Unsourced passages need footnotes[citation needed] (July 2016), ... (October 2022)"Onegreatjoke (talk)00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
b(MoS):
c(OR):
.svg)
.svg)
