Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tetrarch (tank)
- 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.
Tetrarch (tank) edit
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The little tank that could(n't). I've been working on the Tetrarch for a few weeks now. It just went through a quick peer review, but now I'd like to get it formally assessed to see if it's A-Class material. Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I believe the article is ready for FAC, as well. Some comments, below:
- The prototype was completed in December 1937, and proved to be radical departure from the previous light tank designs created by the company for a number of reasons. <- Proved to be a radical departure.
- First, the tank was designed to solve the problems found in previous light tanks designed by the company, all of which had possessed only machine-guns as armaments and extremely thin armour. <- I don't think "extremely thin" is the right group of words; it sounds like an oxymoron. I think extremely can be considered redundant, and should just be eliminated. Otherwise, I'd avoid using "thin" and instead use "were insufficiently armored".
- Some of the conversion templates need to be revised, as the adj=on parameter needs to be taken off. This includes armor measurements (millimeters should be plural and there should be no hyphen).
- If possible, if some measurements are in metric first then they should all be metric first; otherwise, they should all be imperial first, and then converted to metric.
- in July 1938 it requested that 70 of the tanks be put into production <- "requested that 70 tanks be produced" sounds more proper (otherwise, it seems like you're literally taking a tank and "putting it into production" as opposed to producing the tank.
JonCatalán(Talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all of those except number four - I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do with the weights and measurements. Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use the conversions template. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most do have conversion templates; for future reference, you choose in which order the units will be presented in the order they're presented in the conversion template. Let's say you want to have kilometers as the main unit, and convert to miles. So, you'd have {{convert|40|km|mi}}. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use the conversions template. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all of those except number four - I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do with the weights and measurements. Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport- In the infobox you might want to put a line break between the on and off road speeds; it looks to me like it says a fast speed, off road, and then a slower speed, with the implication that it goes slower on roads. This should be clarified.
- Sorry, technical things on wiki aren't my strong point. How would I do that?
- Actually, I might have solved this one. Would you take a look and see if I have to your satisfaction?
- Yeah, that's good.
- Actually, I might have solved this one. Would you take a look and see if I have to your satisfaction?
- Sorry, technical things on wiki aren't my strong point. How would I do that?
- There are a lot of problems with linking, several topics are either linked twice or more, not at all, or are linked once, just not the first time they appear, including 2 pounder, linked at least twice, and Battle of France, linked in the Lend-Lease section and not Development, where it first appears.
- I've fixed Battle of France, and the 2 Pounder problem, and I can't seem to find any more repetition. But if you can see any, then please let me know and I'll fix them.
- Ah, and for topics being linked several times, if you're referring to something being linked in the lead and then again in the article, I was advised to do this by another editor a while ago - something about making it easier for the reader to follow a topic, I believe.
- Mmk, I suppose there is an exception in WP:CONTEXT for that, so it's fine.
- Ah, and for topics being linked several times, if you're referring to something being linked in the lead and then again in the article, I was advised to do this by another editor a while ago - something about making it easier for the reader to follow a topic, I believe.
- I've fixed Battle of France, and the 2 Pounder problem, and I can't seem to find any more repetition. But if you can see any, then please let me know and I'll fix them.
- "too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively" Please do not use the same word twice in such close proximity.
- That's done!
- I'd recommend a copy-edit, as there are several places where the prose could be improved a bit.
These were the only problems I could find, so please fix these, especially the thing about the links and the copy-edit and tell me and I'll return and support it. – Joe Nutter 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, good job. – Joe Nutter 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth thinking a bit about the numbers. As it is now, we quote various sources and say "between 100 and 177 were produced". Do we have any basis for the "between"? It could well be that one or the other of the references is right, and that it would be more accurate to say "either 100 or 177 were produced"... what exactly do the sources say on this? Shimgray | talk | 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis for the between is that most military historians cite 177 as the number produced, but Keith Flint did a more detailed study and states that the official records are vaguer and we can't be sure - all he knows is that it's a minimum of 100. Thus, between 100 and 177 is the best we can do, really. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll quote Flint, p. 12: "Final production of the tank is given in most published sources as 177 vehicles. However, a lower figure of only 100 tanks is given in some surviving official documentation, and the later perceived shortage of Tetrarchs for airborne use would seem to suggest that this lower figure is more accurate." Now, to me that seems quite convincing, but of course Flint is only one historian, and there are several others who state the 177 figure; I think Flint is personally right, as other historians like Tucker state that Tetrarchs were used in Operation Varsity, when they weren't, suggesting they haven't got their facts quite right. But I thought it best to be slightly vaguer and write 'between 100 and 177' to highlight that historians differ slightly on the number produced, and the fact that we'll probably never know because I think some of the documentation is missing that would give a definitive number. Skinny87 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis for the between is that most military historians cite 177 as the number produced, but Keith Flint did a more detailed study and states that the official records are vaguer and we can't be sure - all he knows is that it's a minimum of 100. Thus, between 100 and 177 is the best we can do, really. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support - I'm writing this as I am going through it, and the biggest problem appers to be that you are missing commas after years... (O_O zomg! How could you forget? A few comments/questions/whatever, in no particular order:
- 'Variants' section - is [58] needed twice.
- I think so - to over all the information about the vehicle there.
- k, no prob, just checking.
- I think so - to over all the information about the vehicle there.
- Last sentence, 'Operation Ironclad' - reference?
- Erm, it does! Footnote No. 32!
- =)
- Erm, it does! Footnote No. 32!
- Fitzsimmons in your sources - pg "16" needed? (Or is that a volume?)
- That's a volume, is that okay?
- Actually, what's the proper template for adding a volume number for an encyclopedia?
- I think you did it right - I just didn't take the time to click [edit] and see if the template was made up right! =/
- That's a volume, is that okay?
- Personal preference - can you rename the "Footnotes" to "Refereces" and the "References" to "Sources" or "Bibliography" per User:the_ed17/Rename Notes? I'm just afraid that it could be confusing.
- Done!
- Thanks!
- Done!
- Cheers! Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments. I'll start working on them straight away, but my computer has caught a virus (swine), so it might take a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. Hope that your computer gets better...I'll try to remember to send a get-well card. :) Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments. I'll start working on them straight away, but my computer has caught a virus (swine), so it might take a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (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.