Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TAM (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 17:33, 13 October 2008.

TAM (tank)

 * Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

The TAM is an Argentine tank developed in the late 1970s and still in active service. I wrote the majority of this article (well, re-wrote) based on the information coming from the only major written source on the tank - Javier de Mazarrasa's book, La Familia Acorazada TAM. I have attempted to diversify the sources as much as possible by scouring through various English sources (unfortunately, there are no English sources which focus on this specific vehicle), and so I have come up with about fourteen additional references. This article passed an A-class review and was recently peer reviewed. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I found no major issues worth mentioning, this fills all the criteria. Domiy (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Page ranges in the references need en dashes. Otherwise, references and sources look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All dashes done. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead: Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All images are fine. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "is a main battle tank in service with the Argentine Army" - "main battle tank" could be some jargon I'm not aware of it, but if it's not, then I'd have this as "is the main battle tank..."
 * "in 1994 manufacturing began anew until the Army's request of 200 tanks was fulfilled" - did they fulfil the request in 1994 too? The reader is left hanging, somewhat.
 * "but the TAM was ultimately never exported." --> "but was ultimately not exported."
 * I made some changes to address the three concerns. For the first comment, I wikilinked to main battle tank since I thought "a" sounded better than "the" in this specific case-well, actually, "the" might be better since "a" may infer that there is more than one MBT in service with the Argentine Army.  In any case, I clarified the second point by adding "prematurely closing the production line in 1983", and changed the word in the third concern.  Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Giggy (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support The article fills the criteria, IMHO. As far as I know from other (non-verifible) sources, the information currently in it is accurate. The pictures included depict reasonably the current aspect of the vehicle. The author of the main source cites is quite well-known nas has several other boks published. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally supportive. I have a few comments from the top.
 * "Profile" means "height", does it?
 * "103,333" without the decimal places would be fine, and easier on the reader.
 * Can you make it clear where and by whom it was manufactured? Was it the Argentine MoD, and Argentine corporation, or what?
 * Do we really need "Spanish language" linked? Who's gonna interrupt their reading to go to that article? Same for British, a word that will confuse most of our readers, I'm sure. "Second World War" and "Atlantic Ocean" too? The low-value links are diluting the good ones, particularly in the first sentences of "Development". Tony   (talk)  12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Profile is the correct word, average height would be a poor substitute though with some of that meaning; Whilst height is more likely to be interpreted as the height of the highest point of the tank.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, profile does refer to height. "Profile" might fall under the category of jargon though, although I think it's more specific than "height".  I could go with silhouette instead—I'll change it temporarily.  I removed the decimal values in 103,300.13.  I tried to make it clearer by adding "local mass production", to infer that production took place in Argentina.  I delinked some of the words, as well.  I hope it looks better now. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't spot any reference in this article to the Falklands War which I believe is the only external war fought by the Argentine army whilst this tank was in service; perhaps this is because none of them were shipped to the Falklands, or none had quite entered service in time. If you have sources that cover this question I think it would be worth a mention in the article as I may not be the only reader who wonders about that. Also were these vehicles used by the Junta against the Argentine people? My understanding is that most of the dirty war preceded their deployment but if they did see any civil repression action that also would be worth a mention.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that an old version of the article did mention that the tank was used in a coup (early 1990s, I believe), but it was mentioned by an unreliable source—I, unfortunately, do not have a reliable source which mentions the same information. On the other hand, I do have a source which mentions they were not used in the Falklands, so I will add that in. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, the statement was unsourced. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking in to that, though with an inanimate object like a tank I'd be inclined to use a word like deployed or saw action rather than participated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version &mdash; Jappalang Lead
 * "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern, well-armed tank, with a high velocity, low silhouette and low weight."
 * Suggestion: "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank that was equipped with adequate fire-power and had a low silhouette."

Development
 * "Despite attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina was only able to secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."
 * This statement is a bit weird in that Argentina did buy American equipment in their attempts there. What is the reason that they should not be able to purchase 300 armored vehicles from US?  Did the US previously promise to replace the Argentinian entire tank fleet?  If the contradiction is not clearly explained, then "Despite" should not be used.  Suggestion: "In their attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina could only secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."


 * "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean and put into gear the so-called Plan Europa (Plan Europe)."
 * "Put into gear" seems a bit informal... Suggestion: "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean, putting their Plan Europa (Plan Europe) into action."


 * "Argentina went on to procure 80 AMX-13 light tanks, as well as 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, manufacturing around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs at home."
 * Go straight to the point. "Argentina procured 80 AMX-13 light tanks, 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, and later manufactured around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs."


 * "possible substitutes for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."
 * Suggestion: "possible replacements for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."


 * "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put in a series of requirements for a tank to enter service in the 1980s. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. Taken into consideration was the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the several types of terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded with the goal of studying, designing and developing a future tank for the Argentine Army. The lack of experience and the necessary technology pushed the Argentine government to look for a foreign company to provide it with these things, resulting in a contract being established with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The contract agreed to a transfer of technology resulting in a program to develop a tank under the requirements issued by the government and under a technical team which included both German and Argentine engineers. It was decided to use the hull of the German Marder armored personnel carrier, and the chassis was strengthened to support the increased weight of the TAM."
 * Suggestion: "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put up a series of requirements for a tank designated to enter service in the 1980s. The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes and could, at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers. The designers of the tank also had to take into account the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the various terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded to study, design and develop this future tank for the Argentine Army. Lacking the experience and necessary technology for the project, the Argentine government looked for a foreign company to help to address these shortcomings. It signed a contract with the German company Thyssen-Henschel.  The terms of the contract called for German and Argentine engineers to work together in developing a tank which would fulfill the requirements issued by Argentina. The Germans would also transfer the technology to the Argentines, allowing the South Americans to develop and produce tanks on their own.  The joint German-Argentine team decided to use the hull of the German armored personnel carrier, strengthening the chassis to support the greater weight of the TAM."


 * What did the Germans get in return for this transfer of technology? They seemed to get the short end of the stick here.


 * "The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality."
 * This statement comes from a primary source. Suggestion: "According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions."


 * "On the TAM, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake and can elevate to 18 degrees or depress to -7 degrees."
 * Suggestion: "Unlike the Rh-105-30, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake. The locally built cannon can be elevated to 18 degrees or depressed to -7 degrees on the TAM."  Furthermore, I think it is preferable to briefly explain the workings of a muzzle brake.


 * "The tank's secondary armaments include a co-axial 7.62 millimeter FN MAG 60-40 general purpose machine gun and a second FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the TAM's turret roof as an anti-air machine gun."
 * Again, a brief explanation co-axial in layman terms would be nice. Is there any way to separate the FN MAG 60-40 link from the general purpose machine gun link (two blue links side-by-side that may be mistaken as a single link)?


 * "which computes the gun's fire solutions"
 * There could be less than military-buff readers around. How about "which helps the gunner in aiming the cannon to hit the target."


 * "The tank commander makes use of a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope, with a 2x and 8x zoom."
 * Suggestion A: "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."
 * Suggestion B: "A Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope allows the tank commander to remain in the tank and observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."


 * "The TAM's engine requirements included low weight and compactness, but with a fast rate of acceleration and high reliability. The program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, producing 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."
 * Suggestion: "Requirements for the TAM stated that its engine had to be light and compact, capable of producing a fast rate of acceleration, and highly reliable. With those terms in mind, the program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, which could produce 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."


 * "a maximum velocity of 75 kilometers per hour"
 * Suggestion: "a maximum speed of 75 kilometers per hour"


 * "It has a range of 500 kilometers with its internal fuel capacity of 680 liters, and 900 kilometers when adding the two 200 liter external fuel tanks."
 * Suggestion: "With a 680-liter internal fuel tank, the TAM could travel 500 kilometers. Its range is extended to 900 kilometers if the vehicle is equipped with two 200-liter external fuel tanks."


 * "The TAM's survivability is based upon its low profile turret, based on that of the Leopard 1A4s and the Leopard 2's, and physical armor arrayed around the tank. It has 50 millimeters at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the vehicle's sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells from up to 35 millimeter guns. The turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has the advantage of better tactical mobility over the nation's terrain."
 * Suggestion: "The TAM relies on its low profile turret&mdash;based on those of the Leopard 1A4 and the Leopard 2&mdash;and armor to survive in the battlefield. Its armor is 50 millimeters thick, sloping at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells fired from guns up to 35 millimeter calibre.  Likewise, the turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has better tactical mobility on Argentina's terrain."


 * "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype, completed in 1978. Apart from the existing periscopes for the tank commander, the position was also given a PERI R12 periscope originally designed for the Leopard 1A4. The gunner and loader received a day periscope each, as well. To fire at night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera was fitted to the mantlet, which moved in elevation with the main gun."
 * Suggestion: "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype. Completed in 1978, it added a PERI R12 periscope, originally designed for the Leopard 1A4, for the tank commander. The gunner and loader each received a day periscope as well. To enable the crew to fire effectively in the night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera, which moved in elevation with the main gun, was fitted to the mantlet." Furthermore, where is this mantlet (a portable protective shield)?


 * "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness to provide additional protection."
 * Suggestion: "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness for additional protection."

Variants
 * "FN MAG 60-20 situated on the turret roof."
 * Suggestion: "FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the turret roof."


 * "Infantry can dismount through a door situated to the rear of the hull."
 * Suggestion: "Infantry can dismount through a door on the rear of the hull."


 * "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, with a range of 9,500 meters and a rate of fire of 8 to 12 shots per minute."
 * Suggestion: "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters."


 * The second paragraph starts with "Other variants include the ..." and ends with "Variants also include ...". It might be better to reword either of those (preferably the latter).

Production
 * "Fabrication of the TAM began in 1979, in Argentina, with the intention of manufacturing 200 tanks and 312 VCTP infantry fighting vehicles, for a total of 512 armored vehicles. However, production ended in 1983 due to economic problems with only 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs built."
 * Suggestion: "Argentina intended to manufacture 512 armored vehicles&mdash;200 tanks and 312 infantry fighting vehicles&mdash;and started production in 1979. Economic problems, however, forced the program to stop in 1983 after 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs had been built."


 * "Although originally 25 VCA-155s were planned for production starting 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."
 * Get rid of the noun plus -ing. "Although 25 VCA-155s were originally planned for its production which started in 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."


 * Why did the article stop at 1995 for the production? Are there no reliable sources that can confirm if TAMSE is still in operation and producing tanks?


 * "The factory is completely covered, with two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Also participating in the production of TAM and variant components were Argentine companies Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."
 * Suggestion: "The factory is completely covered. On its premises are two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Besides TAMSE, other Argentine companies were also involved in the production of TAM and its variant components.  These companies include Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Export and combat history
 * "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs, although upon completion of 20 of these the order was canceled due to budgetary problems in the country."
 * Suggestion: "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems in the country after 20 tanks had been completed."


 * "The TAM achieved 950 out of 1,000 points, while its closest competitor only earned 750 points, but in the end Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."
 * The mention of its competitors "only" scoring 750 points seem a bit biased. Perhaps, "Although the TAM scored 950 out of 1,000 points, outscoring its competitors, Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."


 * "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq appealed to Germany to cancel the order, which it did. The Saudi Arabian deal fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order."
 * Suggestion: "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq successfully appealed to Germany to cancel the order. The Saudi Arabian deal, in turn, fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order." Even so, there is a repetitive sentence structure... Furthermore, why did these countries appeal to Germany?  Should Argentina not be the sole decider, or were these TAMs of German manufacture?

General
 * Remove the periods from all units of measurement per WP:MOS.

Aside from the copyedit I did, the above are my comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I took most of these suggestions into consideration. Some responses:
 * These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. - The maximum road range is not 500 kilometers under the condition that the tank is going at maximum velocity, so I didn't add that in.
 * No source really specifies, but you'd imagine that they got paid.
 * The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality. -> According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions. - I don't understand; the claim on the second sentence has almost nothing to do with the claim in the first sentence. It went from being lethal, to being able to destroy a target on its first shot - these are not necessarily the same thing.
 * I made the change to the sentence, but muzzle brake is wikilinked.
 * Co-axial is wikilinked, as well.
 * I don't feel like "it helps the gunner aim" is really the most accurate description, since that can encompass a lot of things. I added something similar, but I didn't take off "fire solutions".
 * "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects." - This seems redundant in several places. The second suggestion is not necessarily true.
 * A lot of these edits seem like re-writes of sentences that had nothing wrong with them, but making them more complex. For example, the re-write of the engine choice—I decided to keep what I currently have.
 * Velocity is a more exact word than speed.
 * The mantlet is the same as it is in every tank. I wikilinked to Gun mantlet.
 * In the variants section, I didn't make the change to what was relevant to the internal mortar. The copyedit makes it seem as if rate of fire and range are inter-related, which they're not.
 * TAMSE is not producing tanks. Production ended in 1995.
 * I don't see how mentioning how many points its competitors received is biased—it's not an opinion, it's referenced fact.
 * Sources are not very clear, but a lot of the technology used on the tank was German and so the Argentines did not necessarily have the right to sell all of it (like the gun).
 * Apart from the above, everything should be changed. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I seemed direct in my comments, I apologize. I truly appreciate the effort put into improving the prose of the article! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. With the clarification, I can suggest "The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes, move at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, and cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers."
 * 2. I think it is common knowledge that they got paid, but the amount of payment they received for the transfer would be relevant. It is not a big issue if this amount cannot be found (it could be confidential, but it could also have been released through various news sources), but let me know so I can strike it.
 * 3. "Lethality" is subjective and one would expect all firearms to be lethal anyway. By putting "lethality" as an advantage, it is expected that either a source states the weapon can kill much better than other weapons.  As this statement comes from a primary source, that opinion can be questioned (hence, the suggestion of adding in the "according to the manufacturer").  The source also states no qualifier to "lethality" other than "greater firepower" and "high first-shot kill probability".  Replacing "lethality" with the "greater firepower" (which does not truly translate to better killing ability) is another option.
 * 4 & 5. Yeah, I wikilinked it during the copyedit, but I suggested adding brief explanation of their workings as I am of the mind that the reader should not click on the link to find out what it generally means but to find out more of the term in detail.  This is just an opinion.
 * 6. Your change is much better.
 * 7. The essence behind the suggestion was to suggest an importance to the mention of the periscope. If the original sentence is stuck to, please replace "makes use" with "uses".
 * 8. See below.
 * 9. Velocity comprises direction and rate of displacement. Why should a tank use velocity?
 * 10. That is fine.
 * 11. Eh, I do not think "capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters" implies that the rate of fire is dependent on distance.
 * 12. TAMSE's stoppage since 1995 should be mentioned in the article because the paragraph mentioned its reactivation in 1994 to produce an additional 120 TAM tanks as well as VCA-155s. The article then dangles with production numbers for 1995 (which based on the 1983 figure of 150 TAMs, meant that 70 TAMs in the 1994 order were not produced&mdash;200-150=50 tanks were produced).
 * 13. Yes, but we can certainly do without the "only".
 * 14. Hmmm... is it possible to find sources that can clarify this situation further?
 * There is no need to apologize. What I written above (specifically the suggestions) are my opinions.  Like Tony said, the prose is generally fine, but I found it a bit phrased in a technical manner.  Hence, I tried to offer a spicing up of the language (Note: the Suggestions are not issues except where there are other questions to them).  When put in a technical manner, tank jargon&mdash;phrases which most tank buffs would understand&mdash;are often introduced (e.g. coaxial, muzzle brake, etc).  A reader with a lesser interest in tanks can be overwhelmed and find it less motivating to read further on.  Linking is just a work-around (no need to fret about those comments on the terms that are wiki-linked, I left them unstruck for others to think about); it totally fails when there is no article on the term.  I missed this out the first time, but what is a "hydrodynamic par converter"?  Jappalang (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here are some responses,
 * Changed.
 * Unfortunately, the value of the contract isn't mentioned. Argentina's news sources also do not have a well designed online archive, and I haven't been able to find any articles relevant to the TAM.
 * I changed it to "increased lethality".
 * Well, the definitions would be rather long (at least a few sentences each term) and it this may be a breech of the term that the text should not go off topic. Generally speaking, in books "big words" are not defined in the text, as they expect you to go look it up if you don't know it.  The problem with tank articles is that they will be full of jargon, since those are terms in their simplest form (in relation to other tank-related jargon).
 * (Actually #7) Changed to "uses".
 * Well, when a tank is moving then it will have a direction. I think either speed or velocity are fine, but I don't see the point in changing back and forth.
 * I reworded the rate of fire and range sentence. Hopefully, it sounds better now.
 * Well, the article says 120 of both TAMs and VCTPs. I notice how this can be confused as 120 TAMs and 120 VCTPs.  I don't have specific production numbers, unfortunately, although I assume that enough TAMs were produced to fulfill the requirement of 200 tanks and then the rest were VCTPs.  But, breaking it up like that would be original research.
 * "Only" removed.
 * Unfortunately, no. The case is similar to the case described in the AMX-30E article.  The Germans could not sell the Leopard 1 without British approval because the British owned the license to the Royal Ordnance L7.  Just that, this would be original research.  I don't have a general source that describes copyright laws with this type of equipment, unfortunately.
 * I think I took care of most of it. Only a few more points to discuss. :) JonCatalán(Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I struck some but I think I will re-list for clarity my remaining concerns.
 * On "velocity" versus "speed": Everything has a direction when moving but we do not commonly refer to their rate of displacement as velocity. An important point as stated in the velocity article is that as a vector quantity, velocity must have its unit (eastward direction in this example) as "meters per second east" and not simply "meters per second".  Velocity does not equal speed, and I am certain it is not commonly used to describe the capability of a vehicle.  Hence, all mentions of "velocity" in this article should be changed to "speed".
 * What is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Note that Google shows no result at all for this phrase; however, it suggests "hydrodynamic torque converter" or simply "hydrodynamic converter".  I think the unique term deserves some explaining.
 * Besides the difference in opinion over wiki-linking to and briefly describing jargon (but which I am prepared to overlook in light of the explanations), the other concerns are minor and likely subjective. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, all instances of velocity will be changed to speed. And yea, I forgot to translate "par".  Par is torque in Spanish. :( I will change it to hydrodynamic torque converter.  JonCatalán(Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all the major concerns resolved, I looked over the article again. I have a couple of questions:
 * * is the Cold War tanks template necessary?
 * * why is the TAM categorized as a Tank of Germany even though the European country does not use it? Is that category correct (i.e. should it be named "Tanks produced by Germany")?
 * Regardless, other minor concerns aside, I believe this article is comprehensive as the sources allow it to be. It has appropriately used sufficient images to illustrate the tank and its variants.  The article reads well and is generally smooth in its prose.  Hence, I believe it to be worthy of Featured Article status.  Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that we are adding both the Cold War tank and Post Cold War tank templates to tanks which were used in both; i.e. tanks developed during the Cold War, but remain the main battle tanks of their respective countries (such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, etc... we are trying to avoid conflicts about what tanks to include in which templates, and what not). Furthermore, I took off the "tanks of Germany" category (that was there before I started editing the article) and added two more. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - looked through it, found a gap and some other minor problems. I addressed the one, the submitter fixed anything else. Seems about 100% complete. Doesn't seem like anything could be missing, and this is a small topic, which is covered well. I haven't seen anything that this could be opposed over. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Downright clunky prose.  See my copy-edits for some very preliminary indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits you made took out important information, which was definitely not redundant. Some examples,
 * Due to a lack of resources and experience, the Argentine Ministry of Defense established a contract with German company Thyssen-Henschel to transfer the necessary technology. - That wasn't redundant, despite the fact that the next sentence says that the vehicle was designed by German engineers. The fact that Argentina lacked the resources and experiences is an important fact.
 * I don't see what I could change "adequate" with. To me, the adjective is pretty clear, although perhaps it's not as clear to others.  Adequate firepower would simply refer to adequate enough to defeat current threats.  I changed the sentence to, The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank with a low silhouette and sufficient firepower to defeat most modern armored threats.
 * In all the tank-related articles I've put through FAC, having a decimal conversion is preferred to rounding up or rounding down.
 * The rest of the edits are fine.
 * Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have copyedited where I thought it would help, and I'm hoping it's looking better. I'd like to work to get rid of that oppose, however. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed "scuppered", which you added, to "scrapped". According to dictionary.com scuppered is a synonym of "massacred", and so I don't think that would have been the correct word to use. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this isn't forgotten. :P JonCatalán(Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support After a read of this, I can see no issues. -- how do you turn this on  18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Read the article, can't see any problems that haven't already been addressed. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Outstanding article. The only thing that somewhat bothers me (its a pet peeve, so it doesn't count insofar as S&O !votes go) is the presence of the tank portal link out on the main page. A check of the tank portal's FAs shows this isn;t one of them, but if this does become an FA on the tank portal I would recommend removing the portal link on the main page and integrating into the MILHIST template on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, how is that done? JonCatalán(Talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its coded into the Milhist template (actually, it was at my suggestion that we do this :) When an article is selected for use on a particular portal the milhist template is updated with the code  and  . The first part denotes the portal on which the article is used, the second links directly to the article on the portal (selected aricle/x, where x is the number used). At a glance, you can see this on the talk page for Iowa class battleship, and as a bonus for we can add the code regardless of whose portal the article actually appears on, thereby allowing us to include all aplicable projects within the template, thereby cutting down on the need to include portal links on the article name space. Unless something has changes, we can support up to five different portals within out template. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just did it to all the FA tank articles, which are on the portal, and I'll do it on the TAM's page if it passes this FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  Concerned about overreliance on one source: JonCatalan, do you speak Spanish? The MilHist A-class review raised concerns about overreliance on one source, and you replied that there was no info from Argentine newspapers.  I found these with nothing more than a very quick google search on only two newspapers:                .  I have not read these sources in detail, but they certainly indicate that more sources do exist, and give rise to concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article.  As far as I can tell, you haven't used any of these sources.  Because Jbmurray has lodged an Oppose on prose (that remains unaddressed), and because he speaks Spanish, I suggest further work with him, or another Spanish-speaking editor (such as Titoxd) will help assure that this article meets 1b.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, his concern was addressed. He spent some time copyediting the article, but after I left another message on his Talk Page he hasn't responded or reported back here. I will take a look at those articles later, though. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those newspaper articles cover, to a degree, some trade deals and I will hopefully replace a number of references with those when I come back from class, or tomorrow morning. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that sources be replaced for the sake of diversification of sources: I'm asking if the article is comprehensive and well-researched.  That is, is anything left out or not accurately represented by the one source you used in writing the article ?   Switching some sources for the sake of diversifying the sources won't address the concern; the concern is thoroughness and comprehensiveness.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added what I could get from those articles you provided. They mostly had to do with illegal arms transfers by former Argentine governments, and one mentioned the amount of tanks planned for the Iran sale.  La Nación mentioned something similar, but instead said that 60 tanks were going to be sold to Iraq.  Mazarrasa, by far the only major and researched source on the TAM, doesn't mention Iraq, and I think that La Nación mixed Iraq with Iran (not the first time a newspaper has gotten things like that wrong).  One of La Nación's articles claims that the TAM was built by the Germans to work in conjunction with "heavy tanks", but the Argentines were not capable of building heavier tanks.  I'm not so sure that I should add this, since this is the only source that mentions that and La Nación has already shown tendencies to get some facts wrong.  The TAM's weight was specific to the terrain it was supposed to fight over, so it doesn't make sense that it was to fight alongside heavier vehicles.  I have worked with another editor, who has supported the article (DPdH), and we haven't been able to find a great deal of sources in Argentina proper (apparently there are some military magazines which mention it, but these are almost impossible to find without living in Buenos Aires).  JonCatalán(Talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not have time to research this article thoroughly just because I happen to speak Spanish: I will give you one example of my concern:


 * The article says:

"In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems after 20 tanks had been completed. A similar order was established by Panama in 1984, although this contract was also canceled, for unknown reasons."


 * Noting the prose concerns of Jbmurray about contracts being "established", I think deeper research should yield something better than "for unknown reasons".


 * Advierten que Panamá podría embargar la fragata Libertad says:

"La historia del juicio es la siguiente: en 1983 la empresa estatal Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAMSE) firmó un contrato con una empresa intermediaria de Palleros constituda en Panamá, llamada Agrometal para vender a Irán 60 blindados por un monto de 90 millones de dólares y con una comisión legal de 9 millones.Sorpresivamente, en 1984 cuando ya había asumido el gobierno radical otra empresa denominada Ventes, también avalada por TAMSE, hizo una oferta por un precio menor lo que enojó a los iraníes y abortó la venta. Entonces, Palleros inició un juicio en Panamá por el cobro de su comisión y resarcimientos de los gastos en que había incurrido, argumentando que la operación se había frustrado por una decisión del Estado argentino.En 1990, Humberto Romero, ministro de Defensa de Menem, aceptó un arreglo extrajudicial por 15 millones de dólares a pagar en cuotas, que fue objetado por Economía. En 1995, la Sala II de la Cámara Civil y Comercial de Buenos Aires falló a favor de Palleros para un pago en bonos, pero el retraso que se habría producido en la liquidación de las cuotas hizo que el demandante reabriese el juicio en Panamá y se trabase embargo sobre bienes argentinos en ese país.Consultados voceros de la Armada sobre esta situación se abstuvieron de confirmar o negar la existencia de la advertencia de la Cancillería."


 * And there are bodies, too. From A Estrada le habrían dado US$ 1,8 millón en Uruguay:

"El capitán de navío estaba imputado como partícipe necesario de la venta ilegal de armas y había sido indagado por el juez Urso el 21 de agosto. Cuatro días después apareció muerto en su departamento.Urso y el fiscal Carlos Stornelli allanaron la casa de Estrada el 27 de agosto y secuestraron una serie de documentos sobre la empresa fantasma Hayton Trade, intermediaria en el contrabando de armas a Ecuador, y sobre transacciones con Panamá vinculadas al Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAM). Entre los documentos confiscados figurarían comprobantes de transferencias a la cuenta secreta de la Exter Banca, en Montevideo.En Uruguay rige un estricto secreto bancario, por lo que Urso deberá tramitar el levantamiento de los datos reservados ante los tribunales de ese país. En el allanamiento a la casa de Estrada, Urso también secuestró notas entrecruzadas con la Dirección Nacional de Fabricaciones Militares (FM), documentos sobre las empresas Hayton Trade y Debrol, y papeles sobre transacciones con Panamá por unidades del TAM supuestamente pactadas desde 1985 en adelante."


 * The article has one sentence about Panama, which doesn't appear to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Considering the text above from two articles only, I suggest deeper research would reveal that we can say more than "canceled for unknown reasons", which should not be a satisfying explanation to our readers. Likewise, the article has one sentence about Ecuador, when the news sources indicate an arms scandal.  I am not suggesting that this article has to delve into all of the arms contraband scandals mentioned in these articles: I am asking that you convince us that the article has been thoroughly researched, and that there is nothing in the 15 links I gave above that should be included.  Perhaps Jbmurray or Titoxd will have time to look in.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those articles are talking about the possibility of political scams, related to the Argentine arm trade with other South American companies (including Panama and Ecuador), and I'm not sure if a lot of the information in those articles can be taken as facts. The articles don't really make it clear why the Panamanian deal was canceled.  For example, in one of those quotes it mentions that TAMSE had offered the tank for cheaper than they had offered it to Iran, which angered the Iranians and caused TAMSE to temporarily cancel.  It then blames the government for making that decision, and then goes on to say how later the Ministry of Defense decided to offer the Panamanians a deal in which they could pay in installments.  It's not very clear, and then says that the bank allowed the payments to be done in bonds, but due to budgetary problems it was decided to stop selling Argentine goods to Panama.  So, would it be correct for me to say that it was canceled because the Panamanians couldn't afford the tank?  It weaves in and out about the arms scandal, and claims that some payments were made to a "secret account", but doesn't really specify.  The article doesn't mention anything related to the TAM and Ecuador, just that Panamanian payments were arriving in banks in Montevideo, Uruguay.  My greatest worry is how Clarín leans politically.  Unfortunately, my Argentine friends are currently sleeping, but I know that a few Argentine newspapers have left-wing or right-wing tendencies, and what I'm afraid of is that a lot of this information is peacocked in order to make it sound worse than it actually is, or at least exaggerate the situation.  I guess I could add information on why the Panamanian deal could have been canceled, but I don't really feel comfortable adding information about an arms scandal, especially when none of my published sources agree. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, considering all of those factors, you feel that "for unknown reasons" summarizes the situation best? This is but one example. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should not that Jbmurray's "concerns" had to do with him deleting a sentence which mentioned that Argentina has established a contract with the German company to design the TAM, not establishing export deals with other countries. Although, I do get your point. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look, those articles are not discussing the offer to sell the TAM to Panama. They are talking about an attempt to sell Iran the TAM through a Panamanian company.  JonCatalán(Talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.