Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tanks in the Spanish Army


 * 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 21:11, 3 December 2008.

Tanks in the Spanish Army

 * Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

This article covers the history of tanks in the Spanish Army from 1919 to the present time. It passed a Good Article review and an A-class review (through the Military History WikiProject), and was copyedited to an extent during both processes. Just to avoid tiring people who have a right to be tired, I will double check on the footnotes and make sure none are repeated. Thank you for your time! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review
 * Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:T-26 tank.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, a date, and an author.


 * Image:Trubia.jpg - Just to be clear, there are no Trubia tanks left anywhere in the world which someone could take a photo of?

Lovely tank photos, btw! Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I changed the first image to another image I took of the T-26, and to clarify; no Trubia prototypes currently exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * New image checks out and I've clarified the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The lead is way, way to long - it's getting on for 1,000 words and needs to be cut by at least 50%. Please see WP:LEAD. The problem arises because you have included discursive details in the lead, instead of providing a broad summary of the article's content. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the article. It was almost impossible to cut more information from the lead, and avoid leaving some parts of the article not summarized.  According to WP:LEAD (which I have read before), an article with over 30,000 characters may have a lead three to four paragraphs long.  This article's prose size is 48kB long, and the article itself is 83kB long.  I don't see anything that says that the lead can only be about 500 words long, although if you check on Word Processor, the current lead is 800 words long, not 1,000 words long; the only thing on that page which mentions "500" is that the lead should be expanded when the stub is about 400 to 500 words long (not the lead).  JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out, taking a second look, that each section really has around two sentences on it, in the lead. Most have one sentence.  I honestly can't see which details are "discursive".  JonCatalán(Talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I suggested you looked at WP:LEAD, I wasn't drawing your attention to any specific numbers, I was meaning you should look at its general guidelines, what it says about overview, about summary style, its emphasis on the lead as a brief summary, about readers not being dropped into the middle of the subject from the word go, etc. I don't accept your statement that it is "impossible to cut more information from the lead". It is supposed to summarise the topic in a general way, leaving the detail to the body of the article. There is simply far too much detail in your lead, which properly belongs elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I said. The current lead summarizes the article, and barely goes into any detail whatsoever.  Read the lead, then read the article.  Each section is covered by one or two sentences (which is standard).  It's a long lead, because it's a long article.  According to WP:LEAD an article of that length can have four paragraphs (which it does).  Cutting from the lead will mean that entire sections aren't covered, which is certainly against MoS guidelines. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read exactly what you said, and disagreed with it, as I do with your later statement that this huge lead "barely goes into any detail whatever". But I'm not getting into any further argument about it - let others judge. Also, please accept that this is not a personal attack. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, I'm not taking this as a personal attack. I just find your argument to have a lack of foundation, given that you haven't even provided examples of what you think goes into detail (and how you think that the detail in the lead even compares to the detail in the article).  You have just repeated the same thing three times, without actually supporting your argument with any evidence.  JonCatalán(Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To but in, I've looked at the lead, and it doesn't seem that long, and I can't find any details that could be taken out that weren't strictly necessary; it's a large article covering a broad topic, so I think it's okay. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay, those are all the comments. I think if they're satisfied and I don't find anything else problematic, I'll Support the article. Skinny87 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * '8 millimeters (0.31 in) Hotchkiss machine gun, and was later re-armed with a Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun' - Millimeters to Millimeter, please
 * 'Upon inspection by the Spanish government, including King Alfonso XIII, it was decided to procure another ten—including eight armed with machine guns and two armed with cannons' - Do we need to know the King inspected the tanks - seems kinda superfluous.
 * 'The French government declared that there were no vehicles available for sale, and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles - why did they suddenly refuse?
 * 'the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which had equipped the Spanish Army's military trucks since 1915' - which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915
 * 'Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new track system substituted the traditional tracks with a track system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis' - I think 'tracks' are repeated too many times in this sentence.
 * 'The new tank proved satisfactory—and even bettered the French FT-17 in some aspects—and the Spanish Army ordered the construction of four prototypes' - how did it better the FT-17?
 * In the T-26 Shipment Table, the Additional Information comments aren't all aligned correctly.
 * 'During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist Army only developed a single tank, taking advantage of the capture of the Trubia Factory in the north, in 1937. Based on the Republican Trubia-Naval, the German Panzer I, the T-26 and the Italian CV-33, it was designed to unite the best of all three major light tanks used by the Nationalist Army during the war.[90] The tank was named the Carro de Infanteria modelo 1937 (Infantry Tank model 1937).[91] However, it did not perform as well as expected, and it was not put into mass production.' - The name of the tank needs to come sooner than it does now, I kept expecting it but didn't find it.
 * 'The Nationalist's tank disparity with Republican forces caused Nationalist commanders to offer up to 500 pesetas for each captured T-26, to Spanish soldiers' - offered spanish soldiers upto 500 pesetas for each captured T-26
 * 'At the end of World War II, the Spanish Army counted on a tank force composed of ...' - 'had' instead of 'counted on'
 * Oops, those templates were missing adj=on; they are fixed now. I'll remove King Alfonso XIII, and in regards to why the French decided to stop the sale, I don't think my reference really gives a specific reason, other than the one already provided by the text (...and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles with the Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun, and consequently denied the sale.).
 * I changed the sentence about tracks to: Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new design substituted the traditional tracks with a system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis.
 * In regards to the comparison between the Trubia and the FT-17, it's explained in the paragraph. For example, The track system was the most innovative and unique part of the new Trubia light tank. Apart from the new tracks, the Trubia was to have a greater velocity (at least 30 kilometers per hour (19 mph)) and greater road range than the FT-17. While a new machine gun was installed on the glacis plate, the tank's crew was increased from two to three, which caused the hull to be enlarged; this also allowed the engine to be maintained from inside the vehicle, allowing the crew to fix small breakdowns in the field.
 * Everything in the table is aligned center, it's just that the comments are long enough so that it takes up the entire cell (except for the third "additional comment"). The table was edited by another user to make the unreadable prose shorter.
 * Everything else should be fixed! Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Well, that's me satisfied Catalan, so Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 07:28, November 24, 2008


 * A quick query (I didn't spot this before) - in the US aid section it refers to "...the XII Armored Brigade, which was formed by the 61st Alcázar de Toledo Armored Infantry Regiment, the 61st Asturias Mechanized Infantry Regiment..." - should these regiments both have the same number? Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! The Asturias was the 31st Mechanized Infantry Regiment. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Named refs again: Jon, this comes up on every one of your facs, I shouldn't still be playing this broken record :-)  Sample:
 * ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77
 * ^ Manrique, La Brunete, p. 73
 * ^ Candil, Carros de Combate, p. 166
 * ^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77

If you can't catch them visually, you can put them in a spreadsheet and sort the spreadsheet to locate the repeats. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. As mentioned, it's an ongoing effort of mine to hunt them down and fix them.  I caught another instance; I will continue to look. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can teach you how to check them using an Excel spreadsheet if you remind me sometime. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Why is this article in the catergories Weapon templates and Military navigational boxes? The article isn't a template so this doesn't seem correct. Rmhermen (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It comes from the inclusion of the "History of the tank" template. I forgot to add   tags on its page.  The issue should be fixed now. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: But please shorten the Lead. Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose re lead (see also my earlier comments). It's not just the length, it breaches other MOS requirements, too. It does not start with a short declarative statement that pinpoints the article and says why the subject is notable. It drops the reader right into the middle of the subject with no introduction or lead-in. Its length is out of proportion, even for a longish aRticle on a broad subject, and that length comes from too much detail in the lead text. For example, while it is appropriate to say that both sides in the Civil War were supplied with tanks from other European powers, it isn't necessary here to give all the model numbers. That is one example. I tried to raise this point with you earlier but you were unwilling even to consider it. If you are now prepared to discuss the issue, I am happy to make other suggestions. I have no other problems with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not I who was unwilling to discuss the issue. It was you.  I asked you for specific examples of what I could remove, and thankfully you have at least provided on right now.  I'm not sure how you want me to introduce the lead; perhaps you could give me an example or help.  "Tanks in the Spanish Army" is an introduction within itself (we know we're talking about tanks in the Spanish Army), and the first sentence denotes that the article is about the history of tanks in the Spanish army (the short declarative statement is: Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from 1919 to the present.).  Finally, according to WP:LEAD an article with over 30kB may properly have a lead which is four paragraphs long, and this article is 80kB long and has a lead which is four paragraphs long (I don't see the breach in MoS, like you claim there is). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I shortened the lead as much as I really could; I removed facts that could be removed, whereas the lead would still make sense. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have taken out about 150 words; you could possibly lose a few more by the removal of redundancies, (e.g. in the first line it isn't necessary to say both "have 80 years of history" and "from 1919 to the present" since they mean the same thing), and the odd peacock words (extremely capable). I leave such things for you to consider. You have to put a bit back to explain what the T-26B was, that was surpassed (3rd para).  Overall, the changes certainly improve the lead, though I still don't like the way one is rushed into the subject rather than "led", but I appreciate that you have attempted to address my concerns, and I have struck the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed mention of the T-26, outright. Any idea on how to start the introduction, though? JonCatalán(Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my suggestion is that you replace the first two sentences with the following single sentence: "Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from the French FT-17s first delivered in 1919 to the Leopard and B1 Centauro models of the early 21st century." Then follow on with "The FT-17 took part in..." etc. This, I think, provides a good lead-in to the topic, and gives a clearer idea of the article's range. It replaces reference to the inspecific "current state" with the time-specific "early 21st century", and is also slightly shorter. What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I instated that sentence. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were almost entirely with the lead, as discussed above, but these concerns have been adequately addressed. I could probably suggest ways of reducing the lead further, but enough is enough, and I am happy to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * I'm going to assume that "Carros de Combate Modernos...) is in Spanish?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes it is. For some reason it didn't show up, even though it was included in the citation template.  I'll put the "es" icon outside of it. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Birth of the Spanish tank force: 1919–1926
 * On the fourth line of the first paragraph, there is a typo. "Canon" should be spelt "Cannon".
 * In the second paragraph of that section you say that the French government "agreed to the sale of ten machine gun armed FT-17s and a single command tank." Could you please explain how this command tank was different from the other tanks?
 * In the next sentence you say that these tanks were presented to the "Escuela Cetral de Tiro, or theCentral Firing School". There should be a space there.
 * In the third paragraph you say "the tanks were forced to withdraw back to Anvar". It's "withdraw to Anvar" or "fall back to Anvar", you can't say "withdraw back".

Early indigenous tank development programs: 1925–1935
 * In the Trubia tank section, "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915" would be better phrased as "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, the same engine the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915"
 * "While touring Europe for a second time, in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" would be better phrased "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo"

Tanks during the Spanish Civil War: 1936–1939 You can say that they "lost 2,700 men" or else "sustained 2,700 casualties". One can't "lose casualties" lol.
 * Shouldn't "Organization of Popular Front armored forces" be a subsection of "Armor of the Popular Front"? Not saying you should do this but it's what I would have done,
 * "The loss of many of the Republic's BT-5s during the Battle of the Ebro caused them to retire the tank to its reserves." &mdash; should be their reserves.
 * "Officially, the Italians lost an estimated 2,700 casualties during the campaigning around Guadalajara; the Republican Army lost an estimated 4,000."

Post-war era: 1939–1953
 * "Beginning in 1945, now-Major Verdeja" would be better phrased as "Beginning in 1945, the now-Major Verdeja"

Late Cold War: 1970–1991 The rest of the article is fine. If these very minor problems are cleaned up the article will make a brilliant FA, wholeheartedly support recognition.-- Patton 123  18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately, the Germans were not able to sell the Leopard tank" would be better phrassed "Ultimately, the Germans were unable to sell the Leopard tank"
 * "With a fuel tank of 970 liters (210 imp gal), the tank had a road range of 600 kilometers (370 mi) and the fuel was, on average, sufficient for 18 hours." Sufficient for 18 hours of what? I assume this should be either combat or travelling.
 * Thank you! I took care of most of it, except for two things.  First, the FT-17 command tank issue.  I'll have to look up my source and see if it mentions the differences.  Unfortunately, I don't have a book dedicated to the FT-17 in general (although maybe I can find something).  The second was the suggestion on the sentence that deals with traveling to Europe.  The suggested replacement was: "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" ->  I believe that adding "and" into the sentence makes it seem as if his tour of Europe was for another purpose, while the specific intention was to look at foreign design trends.  Otherwise, however, it should all be fixed!  Thank you again. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes on second thoughts I agree, it would sound like his trip to Europe was for some other reason. I'll search the net for some sources about the FT-17 myself in the mean time, and post any good ones I find here.-- Patton 123  19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, information about the command tank added! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support-- Patton 123  22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.