Talk:Verdeja

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Verdeja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. I have also performed an extensive copyedit on the article in order to bring the general prose standard up to GA requirements. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• "served to offer enough experience for Spain's first major indigenous tank program." - this doesn't make sense, should it read something like "offered experience that led to the development of Spain's first major indigenous tank program."?
• "with the forward right half occupied by the engine, gear box, clutch and final drive, while the right was occupied by the driver." - One of these "rights" should surely be left?
• "The Verdeja prototype used the Panzer I's Aphon PG-31 gearbox, although due to the revolutions the gearbox worked at, as opposed to those of the engines, it offered excessive velocity making climbing slopes greater than 40º difficult." - This is a little unclear, can you clarify it a bit more?
• "as designed when the two track pieces were joined together" - Should this read "designed with the two track pieces joined together"?
• "The resulting Verdeja 1 prototype was much closer to what Captain Verdeja had originally envisioned." - Closer than what?
• "This new tank was not approved for production or further development due to continued postponment of the production of the Verdeja 1, including offers by the German government to supply the Panzer IV's engine." - Should this be "despite offers by the German government"?
• "could organize a ready-rond stowage area" - what is a ready-rond?

Thank you for taking the time to edit the text and give the review! I prefer that you be as hard as possible, because it will allow the article to be brought to standards for a planned upcoming A-Article review and further in the future a FAC. Thank you! Now, on to your points -

1. I changed that sentence to - offered valuable experience for Spain's first indigenous armor program, the Trubia light tank. As a consequence, I took out 'light tank' from the next sentence.
2. My mistake!
3. Is this any clearer? - The engine was paired with a brand-new radiator and exhaust system. The Verdeja prototype used the Panzer I's Aphon PG-31 gearbox, although worked at excessive revolutions for the engine, offering less torque which made slopes greater than 40º difficult.
4. The tracks are hard to explain and unfortunately I don't have a picture that I can use to illustrate the tracks. I hope to go back to base to get a good photograph, but it might take me a while. When the tracks join together they make a 'groove' which the roadwheel fits in, so it's snug and the tracks can't slip off. Does this rewording help? - Possibly the most unique features of the Verdeja were the suspension and tracks. To avoid have issues regarding tracks slip-off the roadwheels, when two track pieces were fitted together they created a central groove for the roadwheel to travel in. The wording is clunky, though.
5. Since the original prototype was built from scrap, the Verdeja 1 looked closer to what he had originally planned it to look like, since he could produce the parts as they were designed to look like. I changed it to - The appearance of the resulting Verdeja 1 prototype was much closer to what Captain Verdeja had originally envisioned when first designing the tank.
6. The Germans were offering an engine for the Verdeja 1, so the Spanish government postponed production of the Verdeja 2 in favor of seeing the Verdeja 1 with a new engine. I changed it to this - reasons which included offers by the German government to supply the Panzer IV's engine for the Verdeja 1.
7. Ready-rounds are easily accessible pieces of ammunition by the crew. I reworded to - Each side of the breech, near the walls of gun shield, a crew could organize a eight pieces of ammunion in a ready-rond stowage area, allowing easy access to projectiles.

Hopefully, this corrects some of the issues. Again, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Caught the mistake - round, not rond! JonCatalan (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited your changes to improve the English, but otherwise they answer all my questions and I am happy to promote this. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity, always clarity

Some points:

"a capable suspension"? What was incapable about the T-26 or Pz 1? How was the Verdeja's better?

"originally commissioned as the Soviet 45 millimetre 19K"? I'm guessing it was a licenced copy. True?

"tank commander-gunner" This is a known design flaw in tanks; can you source this as a bad idea? (I can't offhand...)

"this worked at excessive revolutions" Excessive how? Too high? Too low? Insufficient torque multiplication? My sense is, it demanded the automotive V8 to rev too high to deliver any acceleration, because the V8 was too small-displacement & underpowered for the weight of the vehicle.

"depress and elevate from 8º to 70º"? I presume this is depress 8º/elevate 70º, but it's far from clear.

"rear of the chassis, which meant moving the drive sprocket" Not a causal link, as German & U.S. WW2 designs prove... I changed it.

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Some replies!

1. In the context of that sentence it's no implying that the suspension was better than that of previous light tanks, or else I would have said a "more capable" suspension. It's simply stating the requirements of the Verdeja, which is pretty clear
2. No, in this case it was scavenged off a Soviet T-26. I'm not sure if 45mm guns built in Spain were "licensed" copies, or if they were just copies. I don't think it's too relevant.
3. No, I can't source this as a bad idea, because it may not have been a bad idea for the tank. The article is not stating what is a good idea or a bad idea, but the features of the Verdeja and what made it better than the Panzer I and T-26; not what made it bad overall. I don't think this comment is very relevant.
4. Yes, excessive revolutions would mean too high (excessively high revolutions). It has nothing to do with the engine, as the sentence clearly states, but with the transmission (the transmission was meant for a more powerful engine).
5. I don't see how it's unclear. Obviously, you can't depress to 70º.
6. I don't understand... what did you change.

Thanks for the questions. Also, a lot of the changes you made were with things that were specifically the way they were to comply with MoS. I'd like to ask that before you make such dramatic changes in the future you go over them in the talk page. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)