Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetrarch (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 21:51, 3 January 2009.

Tetrarch (tank)

 * Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article becauseI believe it meets all of the standards required for a Featured Article. Interestingly, if passed this would be the first British tank to become a Featured Article! Skinny87 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán(Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support & comments
 * Tetrach should be disambiguated (see the dabs finder to the right of this page).
 * Sources look good; all published sources.
 * Images all have public domain tags, but someone more experienced should take a look at them.
 * Cheers Catalan. I realize the dab should be resolved, but I can't because I have no idea what the tank is named after - the system of government, the emperor, or who knows what else. None of my sources state why it was named that, which is odd. I suppose the only way to find out would be some original research at the Imperial War Museum or Bovington Tank Museum. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I agree with you about the standards, and there is always a time for the first British tank nominated! Hope it passes! Dcoll ins52 Give me a yell 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review &mdash; as follows:
 * File:Tetrarch - Light Tank Mark VII.jpg &mdash; likely to be true, but would need a date to confirm that it is a photo dated before 1957. I have sourced a photo on IWM that is likely the basis for this scan (the tank is the same designation and angle, but the background seems to have been removed in the scan), but would like a second opinion.  Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Tetrarch tank.jpg &mdash; a colorised photo is more than a simple colour job, espcially in view of the camouflage scheme (was it really those colours then?). As such, one has to confirm that the British Government was the one who comissioned the colourising (especially since the source a "everyone upload your images" site), and that copyright has been given.  I have tagged the image at Commons with regards to this.  Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Mark VIII Tetrarch Light Tank 1941.jpg, File:IWM-KID-4781-Tetrarch-with-Littlejohn-adaptor.jpg, File:IWM - B 5198.jpg, File:IWM-MH-9324-Harry-Hopkins.jpg, and File:IWM-STT-7163-Alecto-SPG.jpg, and File:KID 001325 A.jpg (update) check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jappalang. I have to admit I don't know anything about the images in question, as they were both there when I started working on the article. The first one might just be an edited version of the photo you found, but for the colour one I have no idea. What happens now in that respect? Skinny87 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the user who uploaded it to see if he can help. But if it can't be resolved, there are some nice black and white PD photos on the IWM site I can replace it with, so it's no hassle if it has to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a colourised image might be copyrighted, the image could be deleted from Commons. If the uploader is unable to help, removing the image from this article would be fine and would not hurt the article.  After all, like you say, there are other images of the Tetrarch.  Jappalang (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall I replace the image now to make things easier? And what about the first image? Skinny87 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be best. As for the first image, I think it is fine since the original image has been found (and removing trees is unlikely to be such an effort that it becomes copyrightable), thus the validity of the PD claim should hold.  Personally, I would leave it in unless someone comes up with a valid argument for non-PD.  Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll replace it now - I've found a nice image of the side of a Tetrarch that has nice ev - should've thought of it earlier. Thanks for the help!

(outdent) Colourised image replaced with, which is hopefully labelled correctly and such. Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments &mdash; I think a further copyedit (maybe by an editor divorced from the article, so he or she can edit from a different angle) could be in order. There are redundancies (such as the sentence "The Mk VII was designed to be the latest design in a series of ..." can be reduced to "The Mk VII was the latest design in a series of ...") and repetitiveness (such as the two "designed"s in "First, the tank was designed to solve the problems found in previous light tanks designed by the company ..."). Some ideas could be rearranged to yield more compact paragraphs (presentation), such as mentioning the "two-man turret" with the armaments instead of dumping it in a sentence bordered by engine specifications and transmission system. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll get going with a copy-edit as soon as I get back from visiting London today! Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am such a wikiholic, I swear. I've given the article an initial copy-edit, dealt with your suggestions and got a few repetitive words, Jappalang. Would you mind looking again and seeing if it's up to standards yet? Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Skinny87, I still think it could do with a fresh pair of eyes. For example,
 * in the lede, "The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. The Tetrarch was originally designed to be the latest in the line of light tanks they had built for the British Army, and also to improve upon its predecessor, the Mk VIB Light Tank, by introducing thicker armour and extra fire-power in the form of a 2 pounder gun." presents a few issues.
 * "Tank, Light, Mk VII"? Bishop names it the "Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch", while Tucker calls it the "Mk VII Tetrarch Light Tank (A17)".
 * Gasp* Here we go. Right, changed it to 'Light Tank Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch'. I was basing it off of other wiki articles, shouldn't have done that, my bad.
 * The primary subject (and hence the focus of the readers) of the first sentence is the tank. The second sentence has "they" as a pronoun, which I understand is supposed to refer to the manufacturers; however, the primary subject remains on the tank, and the sentence structure is not conducive to help readers flip back to recall Vickers-Armstrong as "they".
 * Right, changed as well to 'the company'
 * From what I read in Chris Bishop's The Encyclopedia of World War II, the later models of the Tetrarch's predecessors had equivalent armour (thus making the claim of "introducing thicker armour" questionable). Tucker's Tanks even stated the Mk VIB was protected by 14 mm of steel.
 * Got to look into this, will come back to it.
 * I must've got that wrong, but I've altered the lead and development section to reflect that the armour was not increased. Maybe I got it confused with the Mk VIII; I did work on them both at the same time.
 * the copyedited phrase "The Mk VII possessed a machine-gun, but also mounted a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun, the first Vickers-Armstrong light tank to do so, both of which were in a two-man turret;" tries to squeeze too many ideas, and ends up awkward. It could be broken up into something like "First, to address the lack of heavy weaponry in its previous light tanks, Vickers-Armstrong installed a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun on the Mk VII.  The cannon was paired with a 7.92 mm Besa machine gun, and the two guns were mounted in a two-man turret.", although this suggestion would also require the rework of the preceding sentence ("First, the tank was designed ... and were insufficiently armoured.").
 * Righto, thats changed, as is the preceding sentence.
 * the description of the "unusual steering and mechanical system" is quite confusing to a general reader and at odds with a source. Tucker explains it as a "modified Christie suspension" that steers the front wheels, thus bending the tracks for gentle turns, and follows the old ways for sharp turns.  The current article text talks about " lateral movement " of the wheels, tilting and turning them to change the direction of the tank (underlined for emphasis).  The text, as it is structured, also seems to hint that all turns are made in this manner (instead of the hybridised manner as described by Tucker).  Was Tucker wrong, or was the concept just awkwardly worded for the article?
 * Mutters* That was a source of...disagreement a few weeks ago between myself and another editor. I've rewritten it now as it was awkwardly worded. It got a bit confusing, but hopefully it makes sense now.
 * I am pretty sure that most information about the Tetrarch is in this article, thus satisfying comprehensiveness. Prose, however, still needs work in my opinion.  I believe help may be requested at the Guild of Copy Editors and peer review volunteers.  Jappalang (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments; I have requested an editor to do a copy-edit, but I don't know how long it will take; I'm worried it will fail the Candidacy if I can't get it copy-edited soon enough.
 * I've given it another copy-edit; maybe that'll help in the mean-time, got a few things in the Ironclad and Tonga sections anyhow. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Skinny87, I am going into further details on the talk page of this FAC. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) I think this has been resolved. Skinny87 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Query Tetrarch (tank) refers to a 12 hp engine, is this 12 cylinder?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'm honestly not sure. I'm completely clueless about mechanical things - are the two things a major difference? Does something need to be changed or clarified? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, my bad. Looking the two things up, I've changed it to cylinder; 12 hp probably wouldn't even get the Tetrarch moving! Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the Mk VIIIs article as well. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from the lead:
 * The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. - Too many commas.
 * Commas de-comma'd!


 * The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, an order which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a number of factors. - This sentence would be better as "The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a several factors."
 * Changed!


 * As a consequence, only 100 to 177 of the tanks were ever produced. - Remove "ever".
 * Changed!


 * As a consequence, the majority of the Tetrarchs produced remained in Britain, although twenty were sent to the USSR as part of the Lend-Lease program. - Change "As a consequence" to "as a result" to avoid repetition with a similar phrase in the lead. Also, why is "twenty" spelled out?
 * Changed again!


 * A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943; instead they were attached to the new 6th Airborne Division, becoming part of the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. - "A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943" &rarr; "A lack of gliders prevented them from participating in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943".
 * Thanks for that, altered

Nice work overall. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 04:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to remove some instances of the word "saw" in the lead? It seems kind of odd, seeing that tanks can't see.
 * They're gone, and thanks for the comments and the compliment! Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent article. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I've spent 10 minutes trying to find flaws in this article, either in what I there or isn't, and find it to be a great article. The closest I could get to criticism now would be the reliant on Flint, though he is the authoritative voice on Tetrarchs as I understand it, so, difficult to see that as an avoidable thing. (ec: Damn you Ironholds!) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support In my opinion the article should pass. I can't see what needs copy-editing.
 * Support Spent some time copy editing it, hopefully O.K. I fount the article very interesting and clearly presented. The only issue is that, perhaps, some more of the military terms could be wikilinked or explained. I found a link for pillbox.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - should "75 mm artillery pieces" be wikilinked to Ordnance QF 75 mm or Canon de 75 modèle 1897?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copy-editing, much appreciated; after double-checking Flint, the latter link to the French 75 is correct. Skinny87 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.