Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/T-26/archive1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

T-26

I want to re-nominate this article, now that it has been peer reviewed. The fist A-class review has been archived here. JonCatalan 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think the textual errors and citation problems from the first review have been fixed, the article reads well and covers the topic very comprehensively. Hossen27 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I found it very interesting and it is very well referenced, largely well written and has many useful and interesting pictures and tables. I'm supporting, but I have a few small notes if you wnat them: 1) Although the major problems from the last review have been resolved and the article reads much better, it might still benefit from another copyedit just to make it flow a bit smoother, some of the sentances are a little choppy. I'll take a look myself if you want? 2) In the final paragraph for the Second World War section, it says that production of the T-50 was intended for 1945 and then talks about factories being moved in 1941: Are these dates correct? 3) I wasn't sure about the paragraphs in the intro, I'll move them a little, see if you think it works, if not then revert.--Jackyd101 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your kind compliments. You're correct, that date is wrong - it should have read 1941, and it has been changed. In regards to the introduction I think I'll leave it as you have changed it until somebody else gives their opinion. Concerning your offer of taking a look at the sentence structure of the article, I would much appreciate it! JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave the article a thorough copyedit and look over again, I changed quite a few grammatical constructs, but tried to keep the meaning of the sentences as accurate as possible. Please look over the changes and make sure they are OK. I added one ^{[citation needed]} tag where I felt it was necessary to cite a source, and I also noticed a couple of occasions where I wasn't sure if you were quoting direct from a source or not. If you do, remember to use quotation marks. Finally, the use of "Ibid." as a source marker in Wikipedia is not a good idea, as unlike a paper article, if a random editor sticks a source of his own between your Ibids the aricle will rapidly descend into chaos. Perhaps all sources should be written in the Harvard form without the Ibid. Hope I helped, sorry if I made any errors and again congratulations on a thorough and interesting article.--Jackyd101 06:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you continued help. I exchanged all the ibid. to the name of the author. I'll have to cite the source for the 'citation needed' when I get home (to look up the page number). Regarding sourcing; none of it is directly taken from any given text. It is all own wording. JonCatalan 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked one last sentance, but congratulations once more on a very nice article and some excellent, well written and researched work.--Jackyd101 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All the problems from the last review have been resolved, and no new ones seem to have arisen. Carom 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support There are a few quibbles:

You mention in the lead 12,000 T-26s produce. This fact is mentioned twice more in the following section – a bit unnecessary.

Sentence problems:

The 45 mm gun would see some evolution, as the original 45 mm 19K anti-tank gun[14], developed at Plant No. 8, in 1935 by the 45 mm model 1934, which saw the semi-automatic mechanism replaced by an inertial operating mechanism.

Also:

The turret featured in increase to 20 mm at 45 degrees sloping.[37]

There’s some unecessary wording:

During the Republican offensive towards Torrejon three T-26s were captured, and a few days later another four were captured as well

There are some contracted words eg: It’s. Should read It is.

There are punctuation problems and prose issues that will have to be ironed out if you want to go for FA. Raymond Palmer 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the only 'it's' I could find, and I did some changing to the three sentences you have picked out, especially the second sentence (and the two other times I mentioned 12,000 units had been produces have been erased). I'm glad that you have made a note of prose requirements for FA status. I've actually be crossing my fingers that somebody will be nice enough and help me fixing the prose and punctuation. JonCatalan 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have used a different Infobox from other AFVs - is this intentional for some reason? Raymond Palmer 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the standard WikiProject Military history/Weapons infobox.

This one is often used for various AFV's, as it's slightly more specialized than the Weapon infobox. Consistency is good, but it's not really a big deal, in my opinion.Carom 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more specialized, actually; all the parameters in {{AFV}} are present in the consolidated infobox. {{Infobox Weapon}} is actually intended to replace {{AFV}}, and WP:WEAPON has been (slowly) converting articles to use it; but we haven't been able to arrange for a mass replacement yet. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, Kirill, right you are. Carom 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for bringing it up. Although I do like the colour scheme of the old box Raymond Palmer 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems better than the last read, and very few errors. UberVash 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.