Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project Waler

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.

---

Article promoted by Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Project Waler

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Project Waler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Project Waler/archive1

Project Waler was a failed attempt by the Australian Army to acquire large numbers of high performance armoured fighting vehicles during the 1980s. These vehicles were to replace the Army's M113s and be built in Australia. The project proved over-ambitious, however, and was cancelled by the government after considerable scoping work demonstrated that the costs would be twice as high as expected and the Defence Minister concluded that the capabilities the new vehicles offered were in excess of what Australia needed. The very successful ASLAV wheeled armoured fighting vehicles were purchased from Canada instead, and the M113 fleet was subjected to an upgrade project that was also bungled. Project Waler is sometimes cited as an example of a mismanaged Australian defence procurement process, but it is not well known.

I developed this article as a spin off from my work on the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service, and it draws on the fairly thin literature on the project. The article was assessed as a GA at the start of August this year, and after further work and copy editing I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review: I see no issues with image licensing. The one thing I would recommend is adding sub-headings to the history section to aid navigation. It's quite long especially for readers on mobile devices. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I've added some sub-headings Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

• Typo: "unafforable"

• Looks fine to me. I like the way the article proceeds, with red flags appearing (for me at least) in a steady succession. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've just fixed that typo. On the basis of my research for this article, I'm certainly concerned about the current made-in-Australian plans for high tech IFVs and self-propelled howitzers. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• "scoping work" is a little specialist. Is there a more accessible way of phrasing this?
  • Tweaked, mainly to 'scoping studies' which I hope is clearer. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Possibly it is clearer, but it is still fairly opaque to me. What is "scoping"? Maybe an explanatory footnote?

• "eventuate"!
  • I'm not sure what the problem is here? Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to replace this with a word that readers (eg me) won't have to look up in a dictionary? (Eg 'happen'?)

This is a fairly commonly used word in Australia (for instance, it's frequently been used in headlines for news stories). Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Then if this were Australian Wikipedia it wouldn't be an issue. But, honestly, it is going to leave almost all UK readers guessing. Maybe guessing correctly, due to "eventually", but guessing. I strongly suspect US readers would be in a similar position.

The article is written in Australian English, and will likely mainly be read by Australians, so I really don't see what the problem is here to be honest (I also really like the word!). However, WP:ENGVAR recommends using commonly-understood terms, so I've tweaked this. It's interesting to learn that Australian English has quirks other than the over-use of abbreviations, calling people you barely know 'mate' and occasional rhyming slang! Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Optional: "joining the project to replace its M113s" → 'joining the project to replace its own M113s'.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• "At this time" and "At that time" crops up a lot. Maybe some synonyms? Not a big issue.
  • Removed most of them - this does seem to be one of my tics at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• "phased into service between 1995 and 1996". I am probably being picky, but is there a between 1995 and 1996?
  • Not even in Australia: changed to 'during'. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That trivia is all I can find. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, a pleasure to read. A couple of responses on what I am taking to be either jargon or very Australian usages above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Nick, I only have a few minor comments. Apologies if I have missed anything, I am reading this between watches. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• in the lead, perhaps add what its biggest failings were in the final sentence?
  • Added Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• this seems off, grammatically: " that an tender seeking formal"
  • Tweaked. People who've worked for government probably shouldn't write about government processes. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed. The MOS and other policies here often give me hives based on how I write at work. ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• "cost of the project had doubled in real terms since it began": do we know what this was?
  • Unfortunately not. No sources cover this, possibly as it was commercial in confidence at the time, and the relevant files in the NAA haven't been digitalised. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries; that makes sense. Maybe sometime in the future. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• tense shift: "By the time the M113 upgrade project was complete, the vehicles were no longer suitable for combat because they do not provide adequate protection against heavy machine guns, most forms of modern anti-tank missiles, mines and large improvised explosive devices."
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• "Camp noted that a contemporary US Army project had experienced similar problems" --> Bradley? (not sure - perhaps name the project if known)
  • Clarified - this was a project to develop and assault gun and a fast attack vehicle (the 9th Infantry Division (United States) was the test formation for this project) Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Source review: assuming that Peter Jennings is the Peter Jennings of ASPI, then I believe all sources are reliable, being either government publications, or written by authors with credentials in the area/reliable publishers
  • Yep, it's the same Peter Jennings. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• there were a couple of minor issues with formatting, which I think I have corrected now: [1]
  • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1987 the Government decided to procure wheeled armoured fighting vehicles to replace the 2nd Cavalry Regiment's M113s. Due to the regiment's armoured reconnaissance role and location in Darwin, Northern Territory" --> it is a little before my time, but I thought 2 CAV moved to Darwin in the 1990s, not in 1987. Perhaps tweak this a little if I am correct?
  • Good point - they were acquired as part of the project to move the regiment to Darwin. I've tweaked the text to better reflect this. @AustralianRupert: thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries, added my support above. Thanks for another interesting article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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.