Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lince (tank)


 * 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 03:08, 28 June 2008.

Lince (tank)
Self-nominator JonCatalan (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Why are there two headers as of this revision?-Wafulz (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed! JonCatalan (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I grouped all references with the same title (if an online news article) or the same page number (if published on paper).  I also expanded the dates, and replaced dashes with en dashes. JonCatalan (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't "bidding for the Lince" be changed to just "bidding"?
 * Non-breaking space between unit and measurement.
 * Link decades in the lead - they do provide context.
 * "To achieve this, the Lince would use Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/44 tank-gun and German composite armor from the Leopard 2A4." - why the future tense?
 * "The Spanish government decided to upgrade its AMX-30Es in the late 1980s, which distracted attention from the program. It was eventually cancelled in 1990 when Spain adopted a large number of North American M60 Patton tanks retired from Europe in accordance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. " - it's unclear what the pronoun "it" is referring to. Consider rephrasing.
 * Thanks.
 * Changed.
 * Any measurement in particular? The only one I could find was in the infobox.
 * Done!
 * Changed to past tense.
 * Changed 'it' to The Lince.
 * JonCatalan (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Is the Maquinas de Guerra ref Spanish language? Same for Candil Antonio Carros de Combate?
 * Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher (La Familia de tanques Patton) and should specifiy the language is Spanish. (I see it's listed at the bottom as Susorail ... is that the author or publisher? Probably should be listed in the footnote as Susorail...)
 * I wasn't able to evaluate the Spanish language sources. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing here indicates reliability, a self-published site with collaborator input, no indication of fact-checking or oversight: http://www.militar.org.ua/militar/foro-militar-colaborar.html  I can't find any indication that militar.org.ua would be a reliable source for any purpose.  It should be replaced, particularly since it's being used to source hard data and gov't statements.
 * El País is fine, but it's a newspaper, hence should be italicized; it might also be linked.
 * I can't tell what this is, book? author?  Is Planeta-Agostini a book publisher, magazine, what?  (1984) Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos. Planeta-Agostini. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, those references are in Spanish, but every reference uses the template relevant to what type of source it is. There is nowhere to put 'Spanish' in the book template, unfortunately.  This is the same for italicizing El País; it's simply put into the template under 'publisher', but the template does not italicize it.  The source La Familia de tanques Patton has been exchanged for an article published in Military Technology.  Maquinas de Guerra: Carros de Combate Modernos is an authorless book; it's similar to an encyclopedia.  It was a series of 'books' which were published in the mid-80s on armor of the world (similar, but more in depth, to Janes' Tank Recognition).  I changed the template to encyclopedia. JonCatalan (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the same icon which was added to the Verdeja article to denote that the source is Spanish. JonCatalan (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some misunderstanding here (I speak Spanish, by the way); italics is accomplished on cite news by using the "work" parameter in place of the "publisher" parameter (el pais can be in italics by switching publisher to work), es icon can be added outside the cite template but inside the ref tags, and what about removing militar.org, which doesn't appear reliable for any purpose? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jon, gimme a yell if you need help working out the citation templates. giggy (O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you, I think I got it. JonCatalan (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments giggy (O) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking even better after the peer review, and glad to see the image issue was somewhat resolved!
 * "The Lince program was meant to complement Spain's fleet of AMX-30Es, like the one above." - perhaps "like the one pictured"... I'm not keen on the "above" since some browsers could display captions anywhere but below the image...
 * There's an edit link midway through the Background section... WP:BUNCHED?
 * "the Spanish Army had 299 AMX-30s, designated as AMX-30Es. 280 out of 299..." - "280 of these" would probably work better
 * "However, this time they added the lucrative term of joint export." - would sound better without the however
 * Thanks! Everything done! JonCatalan (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. giggy (O) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

The project started in the midst of modern tanks being introduced in Germany and the US, both of whom were pushing for major exports and more than willing to bend over backwards for things like local production (although the US was not willing to use the 120 at the time, an amusing story of its own). But no, Spain wanted to design and build their own. That's not unheard of by any means, but still deserves explanation.

Then, after about a decade of development, the Lince project disappears. Why? L2's being dumped on the market? Changing political winds at home? Budget cuts? Decreasing not-invented-here as Spanish politics grew more international after the 1980s? I'm sure there's some explanation, but again, it's missing.

Military projects are multi-billion dollar developments that often pour their money into a pit with nothing to show for it. The Lince appears to be one such example (there are many, I'm not picking on the Lince). Readers deserve to know what happened if they're going to be given a balanced view of the history. Spanish readers in particular would be well served by a complete description of where their tax dollars went, and why.

Don't get me wrong, the writing is pretty good, but its just not "complete". A quality for sure, but I simply can't call this FA.

Maury (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue, as I keep trying to point out on the talk page, is that it's explained to the best of what is available in sources. I will quote the exact sentence - Due to the modernization of the AMX-30, the decision to replace older Patton tanks with the M60A3 and Krauss-Maffei's criticism of the management of the indigenous tank program, the Lince was canceled in 1989.  This is also touched upon in an earlier sentence - However, the Spanish government did not announce any winner for the contract. This indecision led Krauss-Maffei to freeze their bid for the Lince.  I mean, I could add to the article that the Lince was expensive and that the upgrade of AMX-30s was cheaper, but this would be an unsourced statement and based upon own research.  I think that your criticism is unfounded, and largely based on the lack of knowledge on the subject.  I don't meant to insult or anything like that, but I honestly don't see what the major issue is.  I think that you believe that there was more to it, and from sources there is clearly not.  JonCatalan (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an online article on the subject, which I can't source because it's not veriefiable, but it says exactly the same thing as the article - Pronto oscuros nubarrones se cernieron sobre el programa, por un lado por la falta de definición del Ministerio y por otro por los problemas que surgieron entre los dos contratistas principales. That sentence says - Soon dark clouds appeared over the program due to the lack of indecision on the part of the Minister of Defense and other problems with surged between the two main contractors. This is mentioned in the article, although I will add that Krauss-Maffei also critisized the program due to the mismanagement of funds, which is covered by one of the sources. I should note that it's mentioned that a billion dollars were put aside, but this does not mean all of them were used. Leopard 2E  JonCatalan (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that the article currently contains the best information you have available. I am happy with the reason for cancellation now. So what was the reason the project started? IE, why did they not buy one of the existing tank designs? I'm sorry, but a 5 tonne reduction in weight, given that it has the same performance figures, does not satisfy me that it was the real reason. As you say, it's a billion dollars, surely that deserves a little digging? Maury (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, does it really matter what you think? No offense intended, but you are not the Spanish Ministry of Defense.  Whether there reasons were correct or not, in your opinion, is irrelevant to the reason why the program was carried out.  Something that isn't within the scope of the article, but provides some 'background' information is that when the Spanish government first approached the German government in late 1993 and then in 1994 the German government was still not interested in selling the Leopard 2, and even offered Spain surplus Leopard 1s and surplus Soviet equipment integrated into the German Army during the reunion of West and East Germany.  This should provide insight on the realism of acquiring the Leopard 2 in the 1980s.  As the article mentions neither the British or the Americans were interested in offering Spain a contract for indigenous production, which is why their bids were not accepted.  As in inferred by the article, the French bid was never 'officially' rejected, but it's obvious that Spain was more interested in a partnership with Krauss-Maffei.  KM's Lince bid was a smaller Leopard 2A4, and so the difference is just in protection.  I don't understand what is the issue.  JonCatalan (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence to the article, based on a 'technicality' - Specifically, the Lince prioritised mobility over the irregular Spanish terrain. I hope that this clears up that mobility does not only encompass maximum road velocity. JonCatalan (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I just hit the jack pot. I was working on the Leopard 2E article in my sandbox, and looking over one of the sources (also used in the Lince article) and read over a page that mentioned that the reduced size of the Lince was due to limitations imposed by Spain's railroad network! JonCatalan (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You see? Aren't you glad I asked? Maury (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that I have adressed and solved the issues, is there any possible way of getting that opposed retracted? Thanks! JonCatalan (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm still skeptical. Given that I have personally witnessed the L2 being transported by train, I am not convinced that this was a real problem. My issue here is that the public statements of government officials are very rarely the whole truth, and it's the whole truth that we strive for here. I will, however, withdraw my Oppose, as it is my only major concern and it seems that no one else cares. Maury (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, which train? Why assume that everyone has the same capabilities? I note the issues that Australia had with their train beds for transporting the M1 when they first got them.  It's not a simple issue, and Spain's MBT size had for the most part remained the same since 1954.  My issue is that the lack of evidence to support your theory, in my opinion, means that you shouldn't be opposing an article based on opinion - when the article is clearly referenced.  I'm sorry to sound blunt or rude, as I'm a bit frustrated because you clearly did not read the entire article either (it seems from your comment below that that was the first time you had read about the Valiant in regards to the article).  I just see it as a bit unfair and unfounded. JonCatalán (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - A very informative and thorough read (and especially after hearing Jon's explanation here, which cleared up some very similar questions I had after reading). I think this article has real merit.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me? ] 16.06.08 2123 (UTC)


 * Comment - since the answer to the question may have some validity to its rating. Why is does the tabel compare the Lince to the Leclerc Leopard 2 and the Abrams M1? At no point in the text can I see the M1 mentioned as a possible alternative to the Lince, only the M60 is mentioned. Surely the M1 should be replaced with the M60 so the reader can compare what they Spanish did use (in the short term) compared with what they might have built and what they did build?  GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! Well, they are mentioned in the text, under bidding. They were all alternate bids (except the Leopard 2 - the Leopard 2 is what was eventually procured around 6 years after the cancelation of the Lince program). From the text - The French government proposed to cooperate with Spain in designing a tank complete with new technology—they would later develop this program on their own as the AMX-Leclerc... The Italian government proposed a similar deal for a cooperative tank design. The American company General Dynamics and British company Vickers offered the M1 Abrams and Valiant, respectively; the Spanish government rejected their offers the following year because of the low likelihood of local production and export of the tank. JonCatalán (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there's one problem here, Vickers clearly didn't suggest the Valiant. The only Vickers design of the era is the Challenger, and among it's many names I don't seem to recall Valiant. Nor do I recall the MBT-80 being called this either. Are you sure this wasn't the Chief Mk.VI or something of the sort? Maury (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they did. There is just no article on the tank on Wikipedia.  The Vickers Valiant is the same as the Vickers Mk. 7, which was also presented for the Chieftain Replacement Programme (see: Dunstan, Simon, Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank 1987-2000, Osprey Publishing, p. 6).  This was also brought up in the archived peer review, and I provided this link.  A Google search will provide results, as well. JonCatalán (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the page - Vickers MBT JonCatalán (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it now, I must have skipped past. So does the Vickers suggestion merit featuring in the table too? I still suggest that the M60 is added to the table for comparison.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Vickers, I would agree, but at the moment I lack a reliable source for it. I will add the M60, however. JonCatalán (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Excelent work, Catalan. -Fahooglewitz1077 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Status? Has Maury been pinged to revisit? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually pinged him twice - but his argument doesn't change. I've already stated the reasons I believe he is in the wrong (I apologize if this sounds a bit hostile - it's not intended) - but, it's hard to prove otherwise when the same argument is being used irregardless ('well, I think that the Ministry of Defense is lying'). He retracted his oppose, but didn't strike it out: I will, however, withdraw my Oppose, as it is my only major concern and it seems that no one else cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan  (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 26, 2008


 * Support w/one comment: In the last paragraph on the Bidding section you have cited 17 three seperate times when no other citation appears to inturupt the flow; I would suggest eliminating the first two instances of the cite and just leaving the cite at the end of the paragraph. This is more of an asthetic thing though, so I won;t complian if it isn;t changed. Overall this is a Featured Article. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! JonCatalán (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.