Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Panzer I

Panzer I

Just got done with a major renovation of the article, and I wanted to refine it before putting up for good article review. Ultimately, at some point which is not likely to be in the near future, I would like to feature this article. A closer goal is passing A-class review. JonCatalan 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Looks pretty good, at this point. A few suggestions:

The lead could be lengthened to two/three full paragraphs.
The footnotes for the tables should probably go right after the table header, not at the bottom of the table. Personally, I'd suggest using normal floated class="wikitable" formatting; the current layout is a bit difficult to read, and wastes space on higher resolutions.

Other than that, this mainly needs a thorough copyedit to fix up the occasional clunky wording. Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I extended the lead by another paragraph - hopefully, that looks better. I put the footnotes after the title - I'm no good with tables; these were taken straight from the T-34 article and changed to fit the information I wanted to put in them. So, I would change them as you suggest, but I don't know how to even start. JonCatalan 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the table styling; let me know what you think of the result. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the purpose, even though I don't find them aesthetically appealing ( :P ), but space isn't wasted. What do you think about moving them to the left? The first time I took a look at them I didn't realize they were there! I thought someone had vandalized the page - I had to look at the history to see where they were inserted. I think that if they were moved to the left they would be easier to see - on the other hand, the text would wrap strangely (along the right). If left is not an option, then your change is fine. Thanks for your time and patience. JonCatalan 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I suppose the tables can be flipped to the left margin; the wrapping will be sort of funny, though. Alternately, perhaps we could center them with no wrapping? Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right concerning how it would look if we moved them to the left. Either keep them the way you left them, or center them. I think I'll play around with them now that you've done the hard part. JonCatalan 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought - I'll keep them the way you left them. Putting them in the middle makes the text look choppy. JonCatalan 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that others haven't peer reviewed the article! To keep this active for a little while longer, are there any specific sentences that need to be re-written to make them sound better? Any sentences that really stuck out? JonCatalan 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

"were being reused for production of tank surrogates " I have no idea what a tank surrogate is - can this be explained or the term wikilinked?
"performance in combat was effected by its relatively poor armor protection " - I think effected -> affected
"Although at-first " -> "Although at first "
"the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war was met by apathy German industry " -> "the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war was met by apathy, German industry "
"produced a single prototype denominated under Grosstraktor" - obtuse wording, why not just "produced a single prototype named the Grosstraktor"
"the Leichtertraktor remained experimental vehicles " - is Leichertraktor the plural form here of the german??
"several faults were found in the design, including suspension problems - which forced the vehicle to pitch at high velocities - and engine problems - overheating." -> "several faults were found in the design, including suspension problems - which forced the vehicle to pitch at high velocities - and overheating."
"using steering levels to control the tank" steering levers?
armored/armoured - you use both forms, you should standardise on British English or US English
"Ausf. F" - why A,B,C and F. There is no explanation of the jump from C to F. Was there no D and E? Why not?
"two sides began to consolidate themselves and form - the Popular front and the Spanish Nationalist" - spanish nationalist what? this needs to be a noun.
"Spanish Civil War" - this whole section has too much info and history unrelated to the tank
"During the beginning of Guderian's attack in northern Poland his crops was held back" corps?
" to cooperate with infantry " -> " to coordinate with infantry "
"In other words" -> yeuch, sloppy, remove
"including 955 Panzer Iis" -> "including 955 Panzer Is"
"The one advantage German armor enjoyed of was the use f one-way radios " -> "The one advantage German armor enjoyed of was the use of one-way radios "
"relatively more modern " - more is a comparative term anyway, the use of "relatively" is redundant

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Most of the changes have been done. Leichtertraktor is used in the article like it's used in my sources - I, unfortunately, don't know German. In regards to the use of 'armour', I did catch one mistake in the table, but the use of armour in the quote from Guderian's book is because that's how it's used in his book. About the naming of the tanks - no source really explains why there weren't Ds and Es; some online sources incorrectly call the Ausf. F either D or E - they're wrong. Like is explained in the article there is nothing similar between the Panzer Ausf. B and either the C or F, which could explain the jump in letters. Finally, I would have thought that some information provided under Poland would have been irrelevant, but I feel that most of the information given under Spanish Civil War is important. The only thing which could be considered irrelevant is information on the battle of Madrid, but that was to provide some background information on the Panzer I's first combat operation. Thank you for your thorough comments - the majority of those mistakes were important! JonCatalan 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'leichter Traktor' (correct German spelling - I'm a native speaker of German) it can be translated as light tractor (more in the agricultural sense) or light traction engine (if it was used to pull)Wandalstouring 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name was used to hide the true purpose of the vehicle. JonCatalan 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rindis

Mostly nitpicking - bigger stuff towards the bottom...

should link to Sonderkraftfahrzeug. It's not much but most people will be wondering what it means.
"it was first began to be designed in 1932, and began massproduction in 1934." -> "the initial design was done in 1932, and it began mass production in 1934."
"Despite the original purpose of the vehicle the Panzer I saw combat in Spain, during the Spanish Civil War," -> "Despite the original purpose of the vehicle, the Panzer I saw combat in Spain during the Spanish Civil War,"
"The Grosstraktor was later put into service with the 1st Panzer Division, although not for a considerable amount of time," - do you mean 'not until a considerable amount of time had passed', or 'not for very long once it happened'?
"The first fifteen versions were produced between February and March 1934" -> "The first fifteen vehicles were produced between February and March 1934" (unless each and every one was different, they aren't 'versions')
"using steering levels to control the tank," - really? levels? - maybe levers?
"Despite initial success poor communication" -> "Despite initial success, poor communication"
"in order to adapt a 45 mmm tank-gun" -> "in order to adapt a 45 mm tank-gun"
"for quite a while, disallowing it a faster advance." -> "for quite a while, preventing a faster advance."

"tank surrogates": I'm wondering if perhaps there's a pre-existing term for you, I don't know this one. You're obviously talking about the variants, but do you mean all of them, or just the tank destroyers and self-propelled guns?
"Sister tanks": Another bit of odd terminology. Maybe "Later versions"?
I've heard of a couple later versions, but this is the first I've seen anything past a few prototypes being produced. (Of course, my sources are all pretty old.)
You're still including a lot of general history in the article. The comparisons on tank strengths are understandable, but a recounting of the general course of the campaign should be covered by the article specifically on it. You might want to see if you can look up the units that had PzIs and what battles they took an active part in. Basically, summarize the PzIs involvement, and let the history articles take care of most of the rest.

-Still, looking good! --Rindis 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for your time! First done. As per your second comment, I did change that sentence, but not exactly how you suggested. How does this sound?

- it was first began to be designed in 1932, and began massproduction in 1934.

Third suggested completed. In regards to the fourt suggestion - I mean it was not in service for a considerable amount of time. I changed the sentence a bit to make it clearer. Changed verions to tanks - my mistake. I haven't seen the controls of the Panzer I myself, unfortunately, but all my sources say they used 'steering levers' (English sources; so it's not a bad translation of my Spanish sources). The rest of that first part is changed. Although:

"in order to adapt a 45 mmm tank-gun" -> "in order to adapt a 45 mm tank-gun"

Is there a difference? Sorry, I find that my eyes miss little things most of the time (I'm not being sarcastic).

As per your more important points:

I'm referring to tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, command tankks et cetera. Other variants are called 'logistics vehicles' in this article. I will stub that red link when I can. Sister versions is how the Spanish Panzer I book refers to the two tanks - since they are technically not even close to the Ausf. A and Ausf. B (completely different tanks), and related only by name, I guess that is the genesis of the term 'sister version'. In regards to their production numbers, they should be sourced. In terms of the Spanish Civil War, I think the small paragraph that introduced the battle of Madrid - their first combat experience - is justified. By I understand the problem when concerning the Polish campaign and the French campaign, especially when compared to the Russian campaign. I think I'm going to delete the general history and just leave information on Panzer I strengths in each division and what not. What do you think? JonCatalan 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"first began to be designed" is really clunky English. I'm not entirely happy with my version either, but it at least reads better. "Mass production" is two words.
Levers, good, thought so. That was just the image that popped in my head when you said 'levels'. ^_^
"45 mm" your version has three 'm's in a row. Easy to miss.
Okay, pretty much what I thought. I don't think there's any official English term for the group of them, but "combat variants" should do. I would really avoid "tank surrogate" unless you've seen it in an English source somewhere (I've never seen it before).
Things like the battle of Madrid should be fine. The blow-by-blow account of Poland and France is overboard. Now, saying why they were important there is fine. Like pointing out that the Panzer Divisions had a lot of PzIs, and they were important to the campaign for the following reasons, should be fine. (i.e., talking about the crossing of the Muse and the race to the coast would make some sense).

--Rindis 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the word first, and just said: it began design in 1932 and mass production in 1934
Oh! Sorry, I didn't catch the l in levels. I told you my eyes miss things!
Well, yet another example of the above! Sorry. 45 mmmmmm. Tasty?
The word tank surrogate is used in a manuscript written for the U.S. Army called Towards Combined Arms Warfare, now published in a re-written version by Kansas University Press (I don't own this copy). I will stub the red link immediately - allowing people to get a brief definition if the name confuses them in the article.
I took a large chunk out of the Poland section.

JonCatalan 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]