Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34/archive1

T-34

This article provides good coverage of a historically significant tank. It deserves to be polished up as a potential Featured Article. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 06:24 Z

Get in-line citations. It appears to be now a requirement for FAC. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through the article, and see where they are needed to support particular statements or figures (the table is already sourced this way). Are there any particular places in the article which you think need a citation? —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:23 Z
It is not a requirement unless you've included fact statements that are obviously difficult to trace or verify. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone through the article, adding some inline citations requests in several places. Those should be enough. The article is close to FAC, after those inline citations are added, I would be glad to support it during FAC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks—I've adjusted some footnotes, and added a note to talk:T-34#Footnotes. I'll replace some of the requests with citations in few days. —Michael Z. 2005-12-24 16:39 Z

Subsections in Production History and Combat History (i.e. During WWII, After WWII) may be helpful to digest the text. Also, there are quite many photos in Combat History. Are all of them needed to illustrate the main idea(s)? I would also suggest a more thrilling title instead of "Importance" subsection. Something like "Legacy" - to underscore that T-34 became a cultural phenomenon rather than just a weapon. Sashazlv 01:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subsections are a good idea; I've been worried that at least "Production history" was too long, although I'd be reticent to drop anything. I suppose, we may eventually break off some articles from this one.

The first two photos in "Combat history" illustrate some tank modifications, better than a description alone would—the first is integral, the second a good lead-in to the topic of shaped-charge HEAT munitions. The last two just help to put the tank's history into perspective visually, but are not critical to the article. If they're too much, perhaps some could be put into a gallery.

"Legacy" sounds good too. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 06:17 Z

It's looking really good, consider cleaning up some of the red-links. I've made stub articles for a couple, but it would be nice if there were none :) Consider breaking the combat history out into a separate article Combat history of the T-34. The photos are excellent! Hard factors, Soft factor? (You only list one). Cite sources (I see you have citation neededs outstanding). Perhaps split variants out into a separate article? List of variants of the T-34 maybe? - FrancisTyers 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Francis, the red links need to be filled or removed. But, overall, this is a pretty good article and I would love to see this become an FA. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input so far. I've eliminated a couple more red links by link disambiguation and adding new stubs, and the rest include articles on tank gun models and Soviet tank factories (see Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II, for now).

Francis, can you be a little more specific on what needs to be added regarding hard & soft factors? —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 07:33 Z

No problem, I'm referring to Combat effectiveness of early war T-34s can best be evaluated in terms of 'hard' factors—armour, firepower, and mobility—and 'soft' factors—ergonomics. The T-34 was outstanding in hard factors and poor in soft ones.. Ergonomics might be more than one factor, but it just reads strangely (to have 'factors' then a list and then 'factors' and only one item). - FrancisTyers 14:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I have added training and tactics, which belong in this list also (although the ergonomic problems in early T-34s could be considered a whole list of factors). —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 19:55 Z

I am not sure about this recent edit. The original comment is valid and I may have written that poorly-worded sentence. "Ergonomics" sounds plural but isn't really. My bad.

However, if we are writing about hardware, adding things such as training and tactics into the evaluation of the design is tough territory to get into. Was the Pzkw-II a good tank because German crews were well-trained? No. Likewise, although doctrine certainly informs design, I don't think we can cite tactics or trainign as weaknesses of the T-34. They were weaknesses of the Red Army, and even the excellence of the T-34 design could not fully overcome those weaknesses in 1941-42.

Maybe it would be better to slightly edit the original sentence and then discuss the individual ergonomic weaknesses of the tank? I am thinking of very poor vision, poor crew layout, terrible floor layout, cramped size, etc.

Just my thought. DMorpheus 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right—the theoretical effectiveness of the design is only part of the factors affecting the tank's historical combat performance. I think this section should cover the latter, larger subject, but it's important that it's written with the differences clearly defined. Needs some copy-editing, or a minor rewrite. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 21:18 Z

Please wikify the dates
Those quotes should not be in the article. Please move it to wikiquote
Explain terms such as medium tank in the lead. A user should not click to find out what is a medium tank.
That could be difficult. It is hard to briefly explain different tank classifications and there is a very good separate article on the subject. DMorpheus 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See suggestion below =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MoS for units not followed 76.2mm --> 76.2 mm
Text needs a light copyedit. eg. Phrases such as all over the globe
The list in the =variants= sections would look neater in a table. Make sure that the table width is set to 100% or <600px
=Soviet medium tank models of World War Two= : would look better if the table contents were left aligned. The heading is a bit too long. try =WWII models=
=After the Second World War= : heading not needed
What was "revolutionary" about the design. Suggest you rename the title.
Establishing and maintaining production --> Production
Avoid left-aligning images that push a heading to the right. The hungarians.jpg image pushes the =after= heading to the right
How many countries bought the tank? What about countries like India and China which bought most of their military hardware from the USSR?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates: done; only found one full date
Quotes: each quote directly supports the text—these short quotes are more effective inline than they would be in footnotes, where they would disrupt the flow of reading.
Medium tank is self-explanatory; the history and implications of the medium tank class belong in another article (although the T-34's history sheds some light). But what other terms need explication?
Units format: 76.2mm is only used in adjectival phrases, which the MOS doesn't cover sufficiently; this is an acceptable format (eg, the Economist's style guide [1]) used in many AFV books and WP AFV articles, and reduces visual clutter when calibres are referred to often.
Long heading: reduced to "Soviet medium tank models of WWII"
"Revolutionary design" is contrasted with a following heading "Evolutionary development", and the two together sum up the history of Soviet tank design since 1939. The T-34 was revolutionary in being the very first tank that was envisioned by its designers to be a "universal tank", fulfilling the roles of reconnaissance, breakthrough, and infantry tanks, and in achieving the balance of firepower, mobility, and protection to successfully do so. I'll see if I can brush up the copy to better convey this. "The revolutionary combination of thick, angled armour, heavy firepower and superb mobility placed it in a class above its closest German contemporaries, the Pz Kpfw III and Pz Kpfw IV." (Zaloga 1984:129)
"Production" sounds slightly redundant as a section in "Production history". But perhaps "Establishing and maintaining production" could be improved? Is "Battle of the factories" too cliché?
"Hungarians" image: should all the images in that section be moved up by one paragraph, or switch some to the right?
Employment: good question; it doesn't look like all countries are covered.

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to resolve all of these issues within a week or two, but please feel free to do some copy-editing. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 18:08 Z

Regarding the quotes, an article should have quotes only when its absolutely relavent to the context of the paragraph. The quotes are out of place here and should be moved to wikiquote. This is a valid objection and in the past quotes have been moved to wikiquote.

The "hungarian" image problem has been rectified by removing the solitary subheading.

Use the footnote style of referencing or the inote style instead of placing the reference directly inside the paragraph. This is recommended for for aural and print renditions.

I think =maintaining production= would be better.

yeah, the MoS for adjective based units could be updated, but the units in the infoboxes need to adhere to the MoS

Regarding the "medium tank" bit: How about this rewrite: The T-34 was a Soviet tank often credited as the best and most influential tank of the Second World War. The tank, classified by weight as a medium tank....

=Nichalp «Talk»= 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes: which of the quotes are not relevant in the context of their section?

Citation style: WP:CITE lists Harvard style as the most common style. Footnote style is not appropriate, since these are all not footnotes but citations. What is inote? Who recommends "footnote" and "inote" for aural and print renditions? Since this is primarily a Web encyclopedia, and not an aural or print encyclopedia, why do you suggest changing the style of the citations?

Unit notation: MOS:NUM offers the adjectival example "155-millimetre projectile", but does not offer an abbreviated version, or even mention adjectival usage at all. The current version is a good example of writing style, and doesn't contradict the MOS.

'Medium' tank: the suggested wording sounds awkward. What is so puzzling about medium tank? It's not too big, not too small: just right. The precise definition of the term could be expanded a bit later in the article, but the introduction needn't be cluttered with an explanation of a technical term whose essential meaning is self-evident. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 08:36 Z

Inote or invisible notes are essentially inline citiations that are visible only in edit mode. See template:inote and the discussion on its talk page. Inotes offer a neater interface and are more suited for less controversial or less sensational information. Inotes are extensively used in this article:

Economy of India. Use {{explain-inote}} in the =references= to allow a person interested in crosschecking the them use the edit mode to hunt for them. Unit notation: I was referring to the infoboxes in the second post. As far as the quotes are concerned, they need to be moved to wikiquote. Objections for the same have been raised in the past in FAC (I can't remember which ones). Can't the wording of medium tank be improved upon instead of linking? The word medium itself is a relative term. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Since the citations have been added recently and a few are yet to come, I'd like to leave them all visible for now, but I can see the utility of inotes.

I'm not convinced about the quotes yet; I still think they all support the text. I agree that they should be added to wikiquote (there are more, and longer versions in talk:T-34).

Since the T-34 was instrumental in changing tank classification during and after the war, it may be justified to add a very short section on the subject. I'll think about writing something. —Michael Z. 2005-12-29 21:09 Z