Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tank/archive1

Tank
(Contested - July 5)

Seems stunningly complete, dealing with form, history, usage doctrines, relationships to other types of military unit and ammunition types, and practical considerations going beyond the theory. 81.168.80.170 18:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Could do with images. Will look around at other Tank articles and see if I can find any. Morwen - Talk 19:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * http://www.army.mil has some great ones. They're all modern U.S. tanks, unfortuately, but better than nothing.  Added two photos. Any PD/GFDL sources for foreign/older tank photos? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I added one, still US but it's older at least --Taak 00:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment about images, US tanks are lovely, but do not represent a good cross-section of tank history. Images of the first tanks, Da Vinci's "tank" and others will have passed into PD by now. Oppose until we can get some other pictures here. Burgundavia 00:36, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added 1 WW1 one. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1 WW2 image as well
 * Current status: there are three images on the tank page: an M1A1 Abrams posing, a British WWI tank with its German captors posing, and a Sherman tank in the act of firing. To me this seems like an adequate selection, though pictures of reasonably modern (WWII or later) tanks from other nations would make good additions.  There are also five pictures in "tank history", of which only one is post-WWI, a Sherman.  I think those five should stay there.  Any more images of pre-WWII tanks also should go in the history article.  81.168.80.170 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: The captions could use some editing (see Captions). -- ke4roh 21:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Made them more descriptive. OK now?  81.168.80.170 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: Superb! Thanks -- ke4roh 02:02, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * The article seems well written and complete, but where are the references? Exploding Boy 07:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * The history of the tank is far more varied than just what is presented. Oppose until this is expanded. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes I have found the History of Tanks article, which I kind of missed, oops. However, the history section on Tank still needs a rewrite to include all of tank history, not stop at 1916. Burgundavia 08:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a summary history from 1918-present. (Does that make this a self-nomination?  I'm the same user as 81.168.80.170.)  I think the material I've added needs some more editing, and some of the WWI material should move to tank history .  195.167.169.36 12:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks better now, thanks. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've done the editing I wanted to and now I'm happy with the history section. 81.168.80.170 19:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to place the tank article as a featured article real soon, then the section on the types of tanks should be moved out to the tank History article because it mostly deals with tank types of the 1930s and 1940s There should be a section on tank types in the tank article but it should be more generic, and a bit more modern as is the case with the other sections. AlainV 08:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've moved the section into tank history wholesale. Tanks now being much more homogeneous than they used to be, is there still a need for discussion of tank classes in the context of modern tanks?  81.168.80.170 19:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Objection: Modern Tanks should be merged into the history of tanks section. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. 81.168.80.170 19:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. It has nothing on targeting and other internal equipments or engine and the armor section should have something about armors that are added on to a tank. Revth 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Object - lead section needs expanding. Jargon like MBT needs to be re-introduced in each section since not everybody will read the article from section 1 on. Could also use some further reading and external links. Other than that, this is a really good article. --mav 05:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded lead section. "MBT" now expanded in each section.  195.167.169.36 11:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I remove my objection and add my support. --mav 01:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Liked the article, but nitpicks: 1) The "mobility" section is unwikified. 2) Image:Sherman-korea.jpg could do with some image editing to remove the caption at the top. 3) I think some more photos could still be used to illustrate this article; e.g. closeups of the tracks or the gun or the interior of a tank. &mdash; Matt 00:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Mobility section now contains links. 195.167.169.36 09:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)