Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is my first list, and I'm looking to ultimately put it through a featured list candidacy. I looked at other featured lists, and this one looks more or less similar (in terms of quality). I hope others agree; if not, it will certainly improve by the end of this ACR. ;) Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - Just a few minor points:
- Would you be able to centre the columns as, at the moment, they are a little out of sinc with the headings they are under and look a little ackward?
- Would it be possible to bring more diversity to the citations as there is a rather high reliance on Manrique & Molina?
Also, are lists covered under the Milhist A-Class scope? It's just that I have never seen one at ACR before ...
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks for the comments,
- Everything in the tables is now centered.
- From what Gary King has told me diversity is not as much of an issue on lists as it is on articles, because the information is so specialized that it's expected that only a few sources will contain it. That said, there is really no other source (that I have, at least) that contains similar information neatly presented, or easily accessible.
- Lists should be covered. I have seen a number put through ACR (or I thought I did, can't seem to find them now).
- JonCatalán(Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This meets the criteria and is very attractively presented. As a couple of comments, if information is available it would be good if the dates the tanks were provided were included, and have you considered colour-coding the tanks by the side which operated them? Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good, though can ref #18 be turned into a note? It looks bad that nothing but that is referenced. I mean, I know that everything is referenced by the opening refs, but do readers know that? (Does this even make sense?) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.