Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer I/archive 1

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.

---

Withdrawn on author request Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I

I started working on this article in early 2007 and took it up through the GA Review process, where it passed. I've decided to continue working on it, and eliminated a paragraph in the history section which had less to do with the tank and more to do with the invasion of France in general. I will work through all the MOS requirements I've learned so far, but I'd like to get some feedback before I put it through FAC and at the same time try to get it to A-class. I think that if it can get to A-class, the FAC will not be such a rigorous process. JonCatalán (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this article could benefit from the same layout as the Polish pl:Panzer I article (rated as a good article by Polish Wikipedia standards), where the history, statistics, users and combat performance of the A and B variants are listed separately. The C/D and F versions have their own articles as "niche" versions. Contact User:Spike78, ask nicely and maybe he will do some new 3D models for you like (Panzer IC, Panzer ID, Panzer IF etc). Mieciu K (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the source material that I have there is not enough information to warrant a new article for the Ausf. C and Ausf. F, and no offense to our Polish colleagues, but the quality seems a lot lower in regards to their article. The page is not close to the 50kB limit and seems to lose length as I change everything to follow the MoS guidelines (with some minor gains at some points). I don't know, but the current layout seems efficient enough (with the variants listed separately, as they currently are). JonCatalán (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "by Polish Wikipedia standards", I only wrote that I liked the Polish article's layout more. Mieciu K (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. You used a lot of books for information for the article. Any chance any of those books might have photos of the tank in action in Spain, Poland, France, or Russia that you could scan and upload? Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have quite a few photographs of Spanish Panzer Is used during the civil war, but none are owned by the U.S. government - they are all from the military archives in Spain or belong to Steven Zaloga's private collection (or at least they are attributed to him). And, strangely enough, I have not seen a free picture of the Panzer I on the Eastern Front, but I'll continue looking. I'm sure that the national archives have photographs of both, but I just have to find them. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've read trhough this and I quite like the structure. It wuld help to make the pics a little bigger though, they're tiny so you ca't see much detail without clicking on them.--Serviam (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll make them bigger for the review. But, I can't stop editors from reverting them back to thumbs during the inevitable FAC - apparently, larger images are against image MoS. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've done a line-by-line copyedit of the article, so I don't think I can fairly vote, but it looks comprehensive and excellently referenced and cited (as always) Jon. A few minor comments (mostly fixed in the copyedit):

1. Please avoid your slight and understandable pro-Spanish bias.
2. Avoid or explain the term 'tank surrogate', I don't think it's too well known - I certainly have never seen it before.
3. The combat action section is possibly still a little long. It wanders a bit from the role of the Panzer I in combat to theatre details, eg. number of Polish casualties.
4. I don't think it is made very clear that the Pz I was a dismal failure in combat in almost every action it ever saw. This is a natural bias, but let's be brutally honest - it was blown to pieces by BT-10s :) If there's one thing the Wehrmacht learned from the Condor Legion's involvement in Spain...
5. Needs an illustration - am I showing my bias? I'll get on it ASAP, but as you know that may be a while.

I think this will be a FA very soon. Dhatfield (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Some responses and questions -

1. 1. Does this refer to the amount of space the Spanish Civil War receives in the article or to the attention the Panzer I's career in the Spanish Army after WWII gets? If so, it's a matter of sources (although it may be a bias) and lack of information on the Panzer I's career in the Chinese Civil War (as an example).
   2. Tank surrogate once had a stub article that I made, but it may have been deleted. I'll have to change that term to tank variant.
   3. I'll work on the combat part of the article a.s.a.p., taking out a few sentences and re-writing others.
   4. Well, in the article it does mention how the Panzer I couldn't penetrate the armor of a T-26 and couldn't stop a 45mm round. In Poland, well, I don't think there was much tank on tank action to speak of and I don't have any in depth reports of Panzer I formations engaging Polish tank formations. Perhaps there is information for the French campaign, as the Somua was obviously superior, but I think the role of the Panzer III and Panzer IV overshadow that of the light tanks in regards to the invasion of France and the Low Countries. It's difficult to work it in, but I think I'll make some comparisons between tanks in the text. Thanks!
   5. Wow! We'll your images are always worth the wait! Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Can I have this review closed? I am apparently going to Fort Irwin tomorrow, for a week (have to get full discharge papers), so I won't be around to finish the review. Sorry - I will reopen when I come back. JonCatalán (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.