Talk:Tanks in the Spanish Army/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are a lot of parenthetical insertations in the article, which tends to make the prose choppy. Please try to integrate some of these into the prose.

Is there a reason you use convert templates through most of the article, but not in the comparison table of the Verdeja series to other tanks?

Lead:

"This would be Spain's only model". I'm not sure what you mean by this...

"The Spanish Army ended the Spanish Civil War with a tank fleet of light tanks." Could you just say "with a fleet of light tanks"?

Armor of the Popular Front section, you say "due to the shady nature of their design and construction". First, "shady nature" is rather unencyclopedic. Second, what is meant by "shady nature"?

Same section, "many were not able to move more than 20 m". Does this mean they only moved 20m before breaking down?

Organization of the Popular Front armoured forces section, you say "The battalion was equipped with three tank companies (each company containing ten tanks) and a headquarters company; each company had three platoons, with three tanks a piece." Three tanks times three platoons equals nine, not ten. Did they have a backup tank or something?

Verdeja tank program section, you say "designed to eliminate the possibility of having them slide on when the tank was moving." Should this be "slide off"?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
"Carros de Combate Modernos". Maquinas de Guerra 1. (1984). Planeta-Agostini. Retrieved on 2008-06-13." needs an author. I think it's Candil from looking at the short refs, but I'm not sure, or I would add it myself :)

Refs 138 and 139 should be changed to split ref format. 138 appears to already have an entrance in the references section, while 139 does not appear to.

Just to appease my curiosity, what is "El Pais"? You have it listed as a publisher for several references; I'm assuming it's a magazine?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very nice article! A few minor concerns with referencing and prose, but nothing that should take long to fix, so I am putting the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to respond. The prose issues should be resolved, as I clarified anything that had to be clarified or fixed anything that was mentioned. In regards to references 138 and 138, I took out the citation template and just made it like every other reference and added a range of page numbers I got the information from. "Carros de Combate Modernos" doesn't have an author, but the citation is organized the same way as it is in the article Lince (tank). El País is a national newspaper in Spain with an online archive; it has been considered reliable in the Lince (tank), AMX-30E and Leopard 2E FACs. I hope this clears everything up, thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, in regards to the table; it's copy and pasted from the Verdeja article. I think it was to keep everything as abbreviations. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Thanks for your work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]