Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panzer I


 * 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 04:05, 23 August 2008.

Panzer I

 * Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)

I've been working on this article since last year, and I think it's time it goes through an A-class review. Besides, at least its a break from Spanish tanks! It just passed an A-class review here, and about a year ago went through a peer review. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose there's a better lead image? In the current one, the tank doesn't really stand out against the background, while the other two color pictures don't show the shape of the tank, and the two black-and-white images aren't very attractive. --Carnildo (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no other images available other than those. You can check on Commons and tell me which one you prefer, or just make the change yourself - Panzerkampfwagen I.
 * I have a new possibility: Image:SdKfz101_2.jpg. This edit is a rush job and contains many errors. If the community considers this an improvement, I will invest the time to do the same well. Thoughts? Dhatfield (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good. But it's possible to tell that it was enhanced, and part of a helmet is visible on the extreme left edge of its right headlight. Also, you left some of the background visible through the rear section of the treads. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's certainly better. Now, if you could just get one of those magic CSI image enhancers and move the viewpoint about two feet further up :-) --Carnildo (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of pictures of a Panzer I at the museum of El Goloso, but I don't know how to show them since I don't want to upload them all. And, they might not be of the right view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan (talk • contribs)


 * I think the ideal view is from the front 3/4 (45% off the length axis of the tank in the horizontal) - the camera slightly more towards the front of the tank than the current image, and the camera should be above the top of the tank. A 20 degree to 40 degree down-angle is ideal. Schematics like this and this give ideal views. Of course, getting a shot of a tank from above is difficult but the down-angle should help to eliminate much of the clutter in the background of the current image. Another small detail - when taking the shot, try to avoid the very bright (known as 'blown') highlights on the turret - this is a sign of over-exposure and cannot be fixed in software after the picture is taken. In my opinion we need a strong lead image to compensate for the other low quality images in this article. Dhatfield (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is as good as I can do, from the images I took at El Goloso. Unfortunately, I moved back to San Diego, and so I'm no longer close to the museum, so taking another photograph is out of the question (and, I am a pretty horrible photographer - my camera does automatic exposure measurement; it's supposedly really good at that, but apparently not!). JonCatalán (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)






 * I changed the lead image to the first one. JonCatalán (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support. This is an excellent article and my numerous issues have been addressed promptly. Great job JonCatalán!. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 50 is a deadlink . Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a major problem, since I don't have a book source on that tank. And I was meaning to replace that link, since it would probably come up as non-reliable regardless. I don't want to delete that information, but I might have to. JonCatalán (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I got one! JonCatalán (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More to come. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Panzer I remained in use in Spain until the arrival of aid from the United States of America in 1954, when they were replaced by the relatively modern M47 Patton main battle tank." arrival of aid-->aid arrived
 * "The modifications included up-gunning to a 20mm gun and fitting a Krupp M 311 V-8 gasoline engine." "The" is unnecessary.
 * "It should be noted that during the campaign no less than a quarter of Germany's tanks were unavailable due to maintenance issues or enemy action..." "It should be noted" is unnecessary.
 * "...and of all tanks the Panzer I had proved the most vulnerable to Polish anti-tank weapons." "had" is not needed.
 * "The two main advantage German armor enjoyed were radios which allowed them to coordinate faster than their British or French counterparts and superior tactical doctrine." Other than the typo (advantages, does this statement need a source (just wondering)? Also, which allowed-->allowing.
 * "A final order was supplied to Hungary in 1942, totalling eight Ausf. B’s and six command versions, which was incorporated into the 1st Armored Division and saw combat in late 1942." This sentence is awkward and needs to be rewritten.
 * "With little combat value, these found themselves towing trains through thick mud in order to alleviate logistics problems at the front." Instead of "found themselves", say something along the lines of "tasked with" (just a suggestion).
 * Just checking, is the entire 4th paragraph under the Spanish Civil War section sourced from that one ref? (ref 53)
 * "Machine guns were known to be largely useless against even the lightest tank armor of the time, restricting the Panzer I to a training and anti-infantry role by design." Is there a source for this, or is this statement a common-knowledge fact that doesn't need referencing (I'm not familiar with WP:Military History's standards)?
 * Thanks for the review! All the language issues you suggested are resolved, while references were added where you asked them.  To answer your question, yes all of that paragraph belongs to the same source.  Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Inevitably, the small, vulnerable light tank would be overshadowed in importance by better-known German tanks such as the Panzer IV, Panther, and Tiger, but its contribution to the early victories of Nazi Germany during the Second World War was significant." This smells of original research to me. Who says that the Panzer's role in WWII was significant? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's in the lead, I would have thought it would be supported by the text under it (i.e. the combat history of the Panzer I). JonCatalán (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "There were attempts to upgrade the Panzer I throughout its service history and it continued to serve in the armed forces of Spain until 1954." This sentence contains two different and (seemingly) unrelated ideas.
 * "Two more combat versions of the Panzer I were designed and produced between 1939 and 1942, but by this stage the design concept had been superseded by medium and heavy tanks and neither was produced in sufficient numbers to have a real impact on the progress of the war." "Neither" what?
 * "The Ausf. F was armed with two 7.92 millimeter MG-34s." This sentence doesn't belong at the end of the paragraph (paragraph 2, Sister Tanks section).
 * "On 18 July 1936, war broke out on the Iberian peninsula as Spain dissolved into a state of civil war." Contains redundant ideas, perhaps a clearer sentence would be:"On 18 July 1936, civil war broke out in Spain."
 * "The shipment was under the surveillance of the German Navy and Germany immediately responded by sending forty-one Panzer I’s to Spain a few days after." The word "immediately" is unnecessary and perhaps you could change "after" to "later".
 * Ritter von Thoma's Panzer I’s found use fighting for the Nationalists only days later on 30 October, and immediately experienced problems." found use fighting-->fought
 * Thanks. Most of those should be done, although I have questions on three of them.  In regards to changing that sentence which introduces the Spanish Civil War, I don't see a problem with the current one, except that it's longer than the one you provide.  Is it really the policy of Wikipedia to make sentences as short as possible?  The current sentence is not grammatically incorrect, and its somewhat more attractive than 'civil war broke out in Spain', to be completely honest.  I'm not sure - in a way you have a point that it does contain redundant ideas, but changing this is closer to changing the style of the prose.  In any case, I don't see any reason for removing the word 'immediately' either, as it shows the urgency in which the Germans responded - otherwise, they could have responded in any given amount of time.  And finally, switching fighting for fought doesn't make sense within the tense of the sentence IMO. Otherwise, it should all be fixed. JonCatalán (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations. I agree with you on all counts. I will cross out those proposed changes, as well as the fixed problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS, only the first word of the section header is to be capitalized: Combat history, not Combat History. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah, thanks for catching that! JonCatalán (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Make all the dates consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They already should be. If the day, month and year are available they go in that order, if the day isn't available then it goes month and year, and if only the year is available then you only the year is written. JonCatalán (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see that a few dates were still wikilinked. Should be fixed now! JonCatalán (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe change the title of the 2nd table to something that describes the information in the table better-perhaps from "Panzer Is delivered to Spain (1936-1939)" to "Panzer I deliveries to Spain (1936-1939)". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems the first one describes it better, as it specifies which Panzer tank was delivered. I'll change it to "Panzer I deliveries to Spain (1936-1939). JonCatalán (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is what I meant to say. The problem with the first title was that some readers might confuse Is with the word is with a capital "I". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rearranged part of the 2nd paragraph of the North Africa and campaigns in the East section. You can see the difference between the version in the article and my rearranged version at User:Dabomb87/Sandbox. Tell me which one is better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Actually, I like it more. JonCatalán (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean my version? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. JonCatalán (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in the rewritten paragraph. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the image captioned:PzKpfw I Ausf. F in Belgrade, could there be some context added to the caption (museum exhibit, reenactment of assault)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! JonCatalán (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Same with image in the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The tank's weight increased by 0.4 tons, although protection was not increased. Production of the Ausf. B began in August 1935 and finished in early 1937 - Franco writes 840 were constructed, but adds only 675 of these were combat models, while Perrett suggests a total number of 1,500 (offsetting the low number of Ausf. A he proposes) and Gander a total of 675." Two issues: The phrase "although protection was not increased" isn't necessary unless tanks are normally better protected when adding weight. The second thing is the dash use; I'm not an expert, but I think that the hyphen should be an em dash. See WP:DASH.
 * More dash issues:hyphens to en-dashes in the infobox; also hyphen to endash in the table title: "Panzer I deliveries to Spain (1936-1939)"; hyphen to em-dash in the sentence: "Furthermore, 350 were of Czech design - the rest were either Panzer I’s or Panzer II’s."; Then on ref 63: p.50-51-->p.50–51. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everything should be fixed! JonCatalán (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest using the  to cleanup the notes section. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would clean up the sources. It would just allow the notes to link to the bibliography. JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 29 has a plain numbered link in it. Should be formatted with a title, etc. If this is being used as a source itself, needs to have bibliographic information.
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took out that link, as it isn't a good source (well, the information isn't to Wikipedia's reliability standards). JonCatalán (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, with comments:
 * The "Development history" section mentions "First World War" and "World War I" - perhaps use only one variation of the name
 * "Lucas Molina Franco suggests that 833 Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf. A tanks were built in total, while Bryan Perrett offers the number of 300 and Terry Gander 818 units." - could you provide an adjective to tell us who these people are? They are military historians, I assume, however in the next section, one of them leads an army in Spain. Perhaps wikilink the first instance of Francisco Franco (I know these things get switch around a lot on Wikipedia) in that section.
 * In "North Africa and campaigns in the East", "The Panzer 1's were instead tasked..." - Should that number one be a roman numeral? I'm not sure that is a proper use of an apostrophe, shouldn't it just be "Panzer Is"? --maclean 05:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Everything should be taken care of now. JonCatalán (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: please review WP:ACCESSIBILITY with respect to the image layout, and have someone check images. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The images should adhere to WP:Accessibility now, I believe (reduced caption and image size, and moved image away from just under tertiary heading). The lead image is mine (taken at El Goloso, Spain - 29 October 2007), and the two other images of tanks from museums were taken from commons and are under the GNU Free Documentation license.  The two historic images are from the U.S. National Archives. JonCatalán (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ACCESSIBILITY: "Note also that the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header for similar reasons."  I fixed them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Images: Double checked to validate that all are free, and licensed appropriately (here or at commons). The only concern I had prior to checking the images was the issue of "freedom of panorama" for countries where the tanks are located/pictures taken (like France which has limited ones), but as tanks themselves cannot be (as best I can tell, validation would help) copyrighted, this concern is null and void. --M ASEM  22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Images checked; seem to be fine. The tanks are not copyrighted or derivative works so their use here and at the Commons is fine. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm only halfway through the article; the info about the Spanish Civil War started to make my head throb so I figured I needed a break. Karanacs (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments by karanacs
 * "Like his contemporary Hobart, " - this links to Hobart, Australia. Perhaps the full name of the person referenced would help?
 * There should not be a comma in full dates when using international format (1 Jan 2008 not 1 Jan, 2008). I see extra commas in dates in several places in the article.
 * Thanks, both should be fixed now! JonCatalán (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular reason that the Variants section needs to be split off into a separate page? It's not horrendously long, only 6k or so, and reincorporating it would mean that we get a few interesting images as well as being able to source and footnote that content in line with the main section. Otherwise, I like it - I've given it a quick cosmetic tidy but can't spot anything glaring just now. 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimgray (talk • contribs) August 21, 2008
 * Well, it has the potential to be a rather long page. I actually do have plans of working on it and taking it through the process as well (at least A-class), it just requires me to get a few more sources than I currently have (one of my existing sources doesn't go over variants). JonCatalán (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, that makes sense. It might be worth being a little more verbose in our summary of it here, though - we mention vaguely that TDs etc were built, but a link out to specific articles (there seems to be one for the PzJg I) and a rough figure for total number of variants built (~500?) might be quite interesting. Shimgray | talk | 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a little more. Unfortunately, I don't have a number for total vehicles produced. JonCatalán (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - this article's prose is of a very high quality, and there are no issues with any other criteria. As well as looking at the lead, I chose a section at random and only had to make one minor change. Very well done. —Giggy 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.