Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources, it's safe to say that the majority of them are secondary. Even Baryantinskiy's Light Tanks is built principally on Soviet archival evidence (or, at least, he claims so - no sources are actually given, but sourcing is rare in almost every tank book I have) and information he himself knows from seeing the tank personally, but it's secondary. I don't think I have any 'tertiary' sources. Maybe the only primary source is Freezing in Hell which is an interview published in Military History magazine. Given the subject of the article I think primary sources regarding use of the tank in combat are hard to comeby, especially considering the wars the tank was involved in. I personally don't own any combat memoirs of the Spanish Civil War, and I don't think combat memoirs of Soviet soldiers and generals oftentimes mentioned a tank that was overshadowed by the T-34 in importance. In short, they are all secondary sources. JonCatalan 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Concerning unreferenced statements in the introduction, I felt that these were referenced in the body of the article and so didn't need to be referenced twice - especially since theoritical the body is also much more specific. There are a few statements at the end of paragraphs that I didn't feel needed a reference. Specifically (this is also for myself, so that I can make the changes when I get home):

• The T-26, however, saw wide and valuable service during the Spanish Civil War. - This end of the paragraph leads into a section that details the use of the tank in the Spanish Civil War. All referencing is in that section.
• Additionally, the Soviets would provide over 50 BT-5 fast tanks. - This sentence needs a reference (and will get one).
• The T-26 would remain the backbone of the Spanish armoured forces until the beginning of American military aid in 1953. - This sentence is actually repeated twice, and is referenced the first time it's mentioned. However, the first sentence's context is different, but the point is the same. I guess I should remove either of the sentences, and reference the one that's left.
• Given the lack of information on the latter upgrade attempts it is possible to deduct that both projects never got off the drawing board. - Is actually referenced the sentence before it. I'll move the reference in order to encompasse it all.
• Its perceived success fatally influence post-Spanish Civil War Soviet military thinking as it proved ineffectual against advanced anti-tank weapons and better-armed tanks. - This sentence was meant to lead into the next section, but there is a new section between the two old sections. I'll reference it.
• Below is a comparison of the different tanks used during the Spanish Civil War. - I don't think that requires a reference.
• The debacle in Finland persuaded the Soviet Union to reassess the value of armour in an offensive war, but also made public serious weaknesses in the Red Army's armoured divisions which were not corrected until after the catastrophic losses of 1941 against invading German armour. - Agreed; requires a reference.
• By the end of the year most surviving units of the T-26 had been reverted to other duties, including logistics, and were often used as chassis for new tank surrogates. - Requires a source.

JonCatalan 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sentences I mentioned above have been referenced, if needed. JonCatalan 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In the design section a paragraph comparing the T-26 with it's close relatives it's ancestor the Vickers 6-Ton and it's half-brother the 7TP would be very apreciated, Especialy since the T-26 and 7TP could have been used against each other. Mieciu K 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sorry, I didn't see this comment before. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources on the 7TP. I was tempted to use information on both the 7TP and Vickers 6-Ton Wiki articles, but they weren't referenced so I refraind. I did add a small paragraph that compared the T-26 to the Vickers 6-Ton, but it's hardly as deep as it could be if I had proper sources on these two tanks. JonCatalan 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mieciu K 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor object after further reading. The text refers to events which are not linked (ex. Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Invasion of Poland (thus is not fulfilling WP:BTW) and worse, has confusing or mistaken statements, ex. 'Soviet military failure in Poland' - presumably reffering to Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) - which actually was a Soviet victory. Further: the claim that Spaniards invented Molotov cocktail and Satchel charge to deal with T-26 needs a reference, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Regarding the links, I'll get to changing those to links. Concerning the Soviet military failures in Poland it doesn't imply that the Soviet Union was defeated, just that the campaign was in reality a failure for the Red Army. But I'll make that sentence more specific. JonCatalan 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Response I added the source where you asked for it - hope that makes a difference. Regarding the dubious tag on the sentence which reads: Although the offensive against Japanese forces infiltrating Mongolia was an unexpected success following Soviet military set-backs in Poland[45] and Finland[46], despite the ultimate Soviet victories in both cases, it became apparent that the T-26 was obsolete against newer tanks, including the Japanese Type 97 Chi-Ha, the older Type 89 Chi-Ro and German tanks which were showcased in Poland, such as the Panzer III and Panzer IV. That sentence doesn't directly say that the T-26 proved to be a failure, it says it became obsolete when compared to other tanks, such as the Japanese and and German tanks listed. I expanded the reference, including reasons why the comment is made and a source used by Glantz (which is Soviet), and hopes that justifies removing the dubious tag which I think is not necessary. However, I truly appreciate the help in improving the article! JonCatalan 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to nitpick. My point is that while the Winter War was certainly a near-defeat for the Red Army, and while the Germans PIII and PIVs that Soviets saw in September 1939 in Poland might have given them a pause for thought, the Soviets suffered almost none military setbacks in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Without going into details (yes, they did suffer a defeat or two), comparing the hell of Winter War with the September walkhtrough (not that suprising considering they were invading an unsuspecting foe who stripped that part of the border from virtually anything) is confusing, and thus the sentence above needs to be reforumlated. I will give it a shot.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit you made is fine. Any other objections? JonCatalan 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zazzer

• Comment The pictures and the article tend to go back-and-forth over the tank designations (T26A, T26 Model 1931 etc.). I think it would be better if you used one nomenclature for the entirety (where possible) of the article and listed alternate designations only in the variant section. Oberiko 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but in regards to the pictures I think it's necessary. Some pictures show the tank with two turrets - somebody using the article as a source can mistake it for a later model tank; I think it's important to distinguish. When used in the design section it's meant to distinguish when certain upgrades took place. JonCatalan 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object for now. Mainly because of the quotes at the beginning of some sections. They are unencyclopedic. They don't help the article at all and could even be seen as a way to introduce a POV to an otherwise very neutral article. But there are a few more minor concerns:
  • "Soviet Experimental Design department" should be linked not its acronym OKMO, even if the article it will be linked to is titled OKMO. You always link the "real" name of something not the acronym in parentheses.
  • "Around 1,627 tanks with twin turrets were produced between 1931 and 1933, and 450 were armed with the 37 mm PS-1." This sentence should make it clear that its referring to T-26A tanks.
  • I'm not sure about this one: but shouldn't it be "better-known" rather than "more well-known"?
  • The term "unfortunately" is extremely POV. It absolutely has to be removed. Same thing for the word "catastrophic".
  • I don't really understand why you organized the sections the way you did. There is both a section named "Inter-war years and the Second World War" and another one called "Second World War", which doesn't make any sense. Why not make the "Second World War" section as sub-section of the "Inter-war years and the Second World War" section?
• I would be happy to make a support out of this, but I think these issues have to be addressed before the article can become an FA.--Carabinieri 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the quotations, this would not be the first article with quotes to be featured. The T-34 article has been featured twice, and it includes quotes - in fact, there were a great deal of compliments. The link to OKMO has been changed accordingly. Regarding the T-26A and making sure readers know of what type of tank 1,672 were built, the article never states that there was a T-26B until after, so I would have thought that the reader could have assumed that the figure referred to what variant was being discussed at that point in time - but I will make it clearer. I changed the wording to better known accordingly, as well. Unfortunately was removed completely and catastrophic was exchanged for large-scale. The headings were corrected and 'Second World War' was removed completely from the heading, as that heading never discusses the Second World War - I don't know why I made that mistake. I think the only thing remaining are the quotes, as I'd like to get the opinion of others. It's strange that this didn't come up during the candidacy of the T-34 article. The quotes used in the T-34 article are much more NPOV than the ones I use in the T-26 article. For example:

• • "The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design" —Steven Zaloga et al. (1997:3)

Really, the three quotes used in the T-26 article, IMO, are not suggesting a certain point of view. JonCatalan 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are precedents for articles using quotations passing FA. Had I participated in those FAC discussions I probably would have objected to them being granted FA status with the quotations in place. My question to you, however, is: How do those quotations improve the article at all? I only find them distracting and I think they mar what is otherwise a really good article (besides those few issues I mentioned above and some missing wikilinks I'm going to add myself soon).--Carabinieri 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I think that the quotations do contribute to the article. It may not be a completely "educational" contribution, as the quotes can be erased and the reader not lose any of the information from the article, but I think the quotations give a little life to an otherwise uniform article - like most Wikipedia articles. At least, this was an attitude shared by many during the FAC of the T-34 article. It seemed to have regenerated interest within the reader on the subject matter. In that sense, I do think they improve the article. I really would like for some other people to share their opinion on the subject on quotations in articles, and so we could perhaps get a general consensus. Besides that, I think most of the issues you brought up (and I forgot to thank you for reading and helping me correct those errors) have been corrected. JonCatalan 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those points have been addressed. So I'll switch to a weak support. This article is great, but those quotations do bother me. Do you think it would be possible to integrate them into their respective sections? I think that would be a lot better.--Carabinieri 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to do that. JonCatalan 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all my concerns have been addressed. Strong support.--Carabinieri 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and for your patience. JonCatalan 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I copy edited this during A-Class review and was very impressed with the scope and referencing of the article. I see all the kinks it had then have been ironed out and I am happy to support.--Jackyd101 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Glad to see the process continued to improve the article. Great stuff (and I like the blue box idea to seperate comments, I'm gonna' steal it). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work on the article, very informative.UberVash 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]