Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verdeja (tank)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:00, 13 June 2008 [1].

Verdeja (tank)

[edit]

Self-Nominator; the Verdeja article has been peer-reviewed, was promoted to Good Article and has just been promoted to an A-class article within the Military History WikiProject. I believe it meets featured article criteria and, if not, I am willing to spend as much time as necessary to edit it until it does. JonCatalan (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.jedsite.info/index.html a reliable source?
  • The Exposicion de Materialse Acorazadas Ministerio de Defensa .. could we do two things, one specify the site is in spanish (assuming it is) and give the country of the Ministerio de Defensa?
  • I'm obviously missing something, the "Ejercito de Tierra short form footnotes in the references, where exactly do they fit in in the bibliography? i.e. What bibliographical ref are they referring to?
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jedsite specializes on military vehicles and is one of the few sites that really covers vehicles that are relatively unknown (like the Verdeja). The information Jedsite provides is the same as Javier de Mazarrasa's book provides. I felt that I continued to use Javier de Mazarrasa for all the information then I would get critics asking for another source, and so whatever information was provided by another source which matched I used the other source (whether this was Jedsite or another book, or an article published in Armas). How would I prove whether or not it is reliable? And, you're right about Ejército de Tierra; the bibliographic reference is the Ministro de Defensa webpage. It should be changed to Ministro de Defensa, and not Ejército de Tierra. As for that reference, I will give the country and make sure it says that the source is in Spanish. If I may ask, I've seen people refering to the link checker. What is that? Thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. I couldn't see an about page for Jedsite, nor any sources on their page. (Although, i'm really tired, and may have missed something). The link checker tool is over on the side of this page, the link that says "External links" if you click it, it'll take you to a tool that checks that the links in the article all work. Great tool! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Jedsite references have been paired with a reference from a book. JonCatalan (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There should be a non-breaking space between measurement and unit.
  • I'm pretty sure units should be spelled out in text (i.e. km versus kilometer/kilometre).
  • A few refs are misplaced - either a space between the punctuation and the ref or the ref before the punctuation.
  • "The Verdeja was a series of light tanks developed in Spain between 1938 and 1954, in an attempt to replace German Panzer I and Soviet T-26 tanks in Spanish service." - why the comma?
  • "The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability, as opposed to protection." - why the comma again? Also, it's not clear what is meant by "survivability".
  • Three consecutive sentences in the lead begin with "The Verdeja" and four sentences total (out of five) in the first paragraph write it out in full - use pronouns more often!
  • "Interest in the vehicle's development waned after the end of the Second World War and, despite attempts to fit a new engine in the Verdeja 2 and convert the Verdeja 1 into a self-propelled artillery piece, ultimately the program was unofficially canceled in favor of adopting the US M47 Patton Tank in 1954." - run-on sentence.
  • "A prototype of the 75 mm self-propelled howitzer,[4] and of the Verdeja 2 remain, and are currently on display.[5]" - why the comma?
Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
  1. All units should already have a non-breaking space between them and the measurement.
  2. Is there somewhere on the Manual of Style that this is mentioned? Neither the T-26 article (which I was the main contributor to when it was getting featured status) nor the T-34 article (not written by me) spelt out units completely in the text.
  3. All the refs are after the punctuation, as I was told to do per MoS in the T-26 article. I will add a non-breaking space, however. EDIT: I took it out as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use#Ref tags and punctuation.
  4. Comma removed.
  5. Comma removed. I changed the sentence to - The Verdeja was designed as an advanced light tank and was one of the first development programs which took into account survivability of the crew as opposed to the protection of the tank.
  6. I took out some of the Verdejas, and replaced them with pronouns.
  7. This sentence was split into two sentences.
  8. Comma removed!
JonCatalan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For #3 it has been changed, my mistake. For #2 the MoS is not very clear. It says abbreviations for units should be used in tables and infoboxes, but does not specify in the text. Ah, found it - In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; - I will change. JonCatalan (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good prose in lead, no MOS issues. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "References" → "Notes" and "Bibliography" → "References" per WP:LAYOUT
  • "155 L-3-35 tankettes. [14] Meanwhile" and "Madrid. [27] A major" — extra space
  • Use a wikitable (by using class="wikitable") for "Comparison to T-26 and Panzer I" instead of what you are using now (see Help:Table)
  • "pp. 11-12" and "28-34" — use en dash per WP:DASH
  • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for "7-25 mm" etc. in "Comparison to T-26 and Panzer I"

Gary King (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, here are the changes:
  1. References was changed to notes, and bibliography to references.
  2. I added a space to all the references; is that what you mean?
  3. Done! The table is actually taken from the one used on the T-34 article, but this looks better.
  4. Done!
  5. Done!

JonCatalan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant remove all extra spaces before references, per WP:FOOTNOTE. Also, the table still doesn't look very good; as a web designer, I'm especially critical of the way it looks now. For instance, remove any forced font size – it is too small right now. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the font size of the tables. Took out mention of font-size altogether, actually. I like it less myself, but if it's preferred then what I like doesn't really matter! But, the previous tables have never been an issue impeding featured article status, so I dunno why it is now. But, it really doesn't matter to me - whatever gets it featured. Although it conflicts with what the person above suggested, I'll remove spaced; there were no spaced to begin with. JonCatalan (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still extra rows in the table above and below the content. Also, perhaps the references can be placed somewhere better for the table. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the following links in the article need to be disambiguated: Toledo, Pound, and Feet. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table has been changed, and the references moved. And the links have been disambiguated. JonCatalan (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, much better. Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Meets all WP:FACR criteria. Octane [improve me?] 08.06.08 2129 (UTC)

I will unitalisize it. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. At least, Verdeja should disambiguate between Felix Verdeja and the tank. The issue is that I don't really know how to change article names. But, I'll do something similar to the Lince article and have a link that goes to Felix Verdeja at the top. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved this to Verdeja (tank) and updated all the FAC, PR and ACR links :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: I found more MoS errors than expected (WP:MSH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSBOLD), so I recommend asking Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through after the undoubtedly unreliable source jedsite.com is removed. (Pairing it with another source doesn't justify inclusion of any information from a contributor self-published site; better would be to stick to the book source information and remove the individual contributor homepages.) I also suspect that attention is needed to wikilinking, and will be looking at that more closely on my next pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, here are some questions, though -
  1. I don't understand the issue with Jedsite. If those references are paired, then what does it matter? It offers a free reference for people reading the article, while its reliability is reinforced by the fact that I also paired it with a book reference. So, I don't really understand the issue.
  2. What specifically is wrong with the headers? The headers follow the section headings guidelines. I think referring to the topic is necessary, because 'first prototype' and 'second prototype' would be more indirect and far more confusing.
  3. All precise language has been changed. Specifically, information related to their current locations.
  4. Anything in specific regarding MOSNUM? I added non breaking spaces to some words and dates, but anything specific?
  5. Unecessary italics were removed; although foreign words are still italisized per WP:MOSBOLD.
JonCatalan (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the points SG is making. I've fixed the section headings for MoS-compliance. I'll deal with the rest shortly. In the meantime, I suggest you ditch Jedsite: it's only three refs anyway and I can't find anything attesting to its reliability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Jedsite has been removed. JonCatalan (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add/review the language icon (es icon) to the sources; I did a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! JonCatalan (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Verdeja_(tank)&oldid=1138474956"