Wikipedia:Featured article review/T-26/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review commentary
[edit]T-26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, User talk:Vladimir Historian, User talk:Catalan, User talk:MoRsE, User talk:Mzajac
This is a 2007 promotion that has taken on large amounts of uncited text; there are also MOS issues. Talk page notified 30 Dec. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, particularly on the uncited text. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the amount of uncited text would leave this article stuck at C class if "coming up from below", so to speak, it is difficult to see how it can remain at the more exalted Featured article status. That said, one large uncited section seems to be the main sticking point and so could be fixed by a determined editor. Monstrelet (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bunch of AFV references, but I'm not sure how thoroughly they cover the T-26 in detail. It may well be that the Russian-language sources used by the original editors are the only ones that cover the tank in such exhaustive detail. The material seems good and I'm extremely reluctant to trim it down to cited material to save its bronze star.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the amount of uncited text would leave this article stuck at C class if "coming up from below", so to speak, it is difficult to see how it can remain at the more exalted Featured article status. That said, one large uncited section seems to be the main sticking point and so could be fixed by a determined editor. Monstrelet (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that promotion was not from 2007 but later because when I started to work and significantly improve this article in 2008 there was no bronze star. There are no large amounts of uncited text actually as almost ALL added text comes from five main (and the best) sources about T-26 - 1. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). Legkiy tank T-26. 1931–1941 (The Light Tank T-26. 1931–1941). Frontline Illustration No. 1 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 79. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 2. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). T-26: mashiny na ego base (T-26: The Vehicles on its Base). Frontline Illustration No. 4 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 80. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 3. Kolomiets, Maxim (2007). T-26. Tyazhelaya sud'ba legkogo tanka (T-26. The Heavy Fate of the Light Tank) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, Strategiya KM, EKSMO. p. 128. ISBN 978-5-699-21871-4; 4. Svirin, Mikhail (2007). Bronya krepka. Istoriya Sovetskogo tanka 1919–1937 (The armour is strong. A history of Soviet tank 1919–1937) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, EKSMO. p. 384. ISBN 978-5-699-13809-8; 5. Solyankin, Alexander; Pavlov Ivan, Pavlov Mikhail, Zheltov Igor (2002). Otechestvennye bronirovannye mashiny. XX vek. Tom 1: 1905–1941 (Native Armoured Vehicles. 20th century. Vol. 1: 1905–1941) (in Russian). Moscow: Exprint. p. 344. ISBN 5-94038-030-1. Of course, such text based on good books (which based on real archive data) improved the initial article a lot (which was based initially on quite poor and sometimes incorrect foreign literature sources). To cite every sentence in the text abstract belonged to the information taken from the aforementioned sources seems to be unnecessary (I prefer to add citation(s) after the whole text abstract always), nevertheless, I will add the corresponding citations after some sentences and abstracts in the T-26 article, specially in the "Combat history" section which seems to be not finished yet and has no citations...To fix everything with citations takes just 10-15 min as in the majority part of the text the correct and necessary citations are present! With best regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the promotion date in the Article Milestones at the top of the talk page; the article was featured in March 2007. Your first edit was January 4, 2009; the featured article icon was on the article at that point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, two weeks, insufficient improvement. If someone is able to add citations, the article has changed significantly enough that it needs reevaluation per all criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:SandyGeorgia, User:Hchc2009, User:Monstrelet, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Vladimir Historian - Could we please get some official opinions as to whether the article should be kept or delisted? Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I applaud Vladimir Historian for adding a lot of cites, but many more are needed. Forex, each survivor needs a cite as does each variant. The main body is better than it was, but still lacks cites, particularly for the sections covering use by foreign nations. If desired I can add cite needed tags where I think they're needed. I didn't go through the cites themselves to check for consistency, but the refs probably need work along that line as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed Jon, the original writer of the article, as he's inactive and very unlikely to notice a talk page message. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Sturm, and the amount of uncited information in this version, I'm at Delist (unless something changes fast). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the above; recommend delist at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.