Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AMX-30E/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [1].

---

AMX-30E

Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)

I started this article only a little while ago, and it recently passed an A-class review. As always, it probably needs the prose to be edited, but I will always be able to quickly make the necessary changes (although, I think the quality of my writing has improved since my first FAC). Otherwise, I believe it easily meets the requirements for FA. JonCatalán (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)-Hello again. You seem to be churning out one excellent tank article after another. Here are my comments on this one:

• "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%." 65% of what?
• "Spain's AMX-30Es went through two separate upgrades in the late 1980s, including a modernization program and a reconstruction program, each done to one half of the fleet." Including is unnecessary here.
• "In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E, while in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments were discussing the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s." Keep the tenses consistent:"In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E; in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments discussed the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s."
• "Ultimately, both of these possible trade deals fell through." Ultimately should be however, "of these possible" is redundant.
• "The M47 was first supplied to the Spanish army in the mid-1950s,[2] offering an improvement over the existing fleet of Panzer I, T-26 and Panzer IV tanks." Slightly awkward wording, I believe "offering an improvement over"-->"to replace" (delete the comma before if you make the change).
• I changed the hyphens to en dashes in the year ranges in the infobox—that was a problem in your last FAC too.
• A general issue of the article is the inconsistency of spelling. Are you using British English, American English, or something else (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)?
• "However, the Leopard boasted of greater armor protection than the AMX-30,[10] partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks. However, the French AMX-30 was being sold at a cheaper price tag than the German Leopard 1." Let's combine these sentences to add flow: "Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30—partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks—the latter was sold at a cheaper price." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Furthermore, in terms of lethality, at the time the French Obus G high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round was one of the most advanced projectiles." Move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
• "However, the Leopard was armed with the L7A3, capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the Soviet T-55 tank." I'm not sure that "however" is the correct contrasting term; try "on the other hand".
• "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle" Ambiguous statement that doesn't need to be there.
• "The UK's unwillingness to sell their L7 tank-gun, the low cost of the AMX-30, and the French offer to allow Spain to manufacture the tank, had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle." "had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle"-->"led the Spanish Army to favor the French armored vehicle".

I'll review the 2nd half of the article tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all the changes done except a couple. Namely, I'll need to look through to change British spelling to American where I can find the former. And second, the idea behind the sentence, "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle", was to avoid possible arguments in the talk thread on which tank was better and so although the article does state some differences and whatnot, that sentence was supposed to give the impression that for whatever reasons Spain chose the AMX-30E. But, I'll remove it if it didn't serve its purpose. Thanks again! JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I found a solution to fix that phrase: diff—how do you like it? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• "the other "20" were in fact the 19 to be delivered to the Spanish Legion". I read this several times, and I still don't understand how 20 became 19.
• "This agreement also set the foundations for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá de Guadaíra." Wording is a bit off—how about: "This agreement laid the foundation for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá."
• "The first 20 tanks were to have 18% of each vehicle manufactured in Spain, while the next 40 would have 40% of the vehicle manufactured in Spain." Comma needs to be a semicolon, delete "while".
• "The other 120 tanks had a grade of nationalization of 65%." "grade of nationalization"-->nationalization grade.
• "This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably."
• "By the time production ended the Spanish Army fielded 299 AMX-30Es (280 produced between 1974 and 1983, and 19 delivered from France in 1970) and 4 training vehicles delivered in 1975." Comma after "ended".
• "The average cost per tank, in the first batch, amounted to 642,800 dollars (45 million pesetas)." Amounted to-->was.
• "Otherwise, options included swapping the existing power pack for a new American diesel engine and a new American transmission or exchanging the power pack for a new German diesel engine and a new German transmission." Otherwise-->other, comma should be deleted.
• I see spaced em dashes, unspace them.
• "Ultimately a mixed solution was picked, named Tecnología Santa Bárbara-Bazán (Santa Bárbara-Bazán Technology), or TSB." Comma after "ultimately".
• "This new engine gave modernized tank a power ratio of 23 metric horsepower to tonne (21.13 hp/S/T). Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks." "This new engine gave the modernized tank", yes?
• MOS fixes needed:when units are written out as compound adjectives, there needs to be a hyphen between the number and the unit (12.7-millimeter gun). Also, the converted units need to have non-breaking spaces in between the number and the abbreviation (0.5 in.).
• "The gun's accuracy was augmented through the installation of the new Mark 9 modification A/D fire control system, designed by Hughes Aircraft Company." The word "augmented was used the sentence before, how about "improved"?
• "A new ballistic computer was also issued, being the NSC-800, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manufactured by the Spanish company INISEL." Sentence needs a rewrite: "A new ballistic computer, the NSC-800, was issued, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manafactured b the Spanish company INISEL."
• "The tank commander also received a control unit, allowing him to choose the type of ammunition to be loaded into the gun and gave him information on the ballistics of the round and the target about to be engaged." This too, needs a facelift for clarity and gender-neutral language: "The tank commander also received a control unit that allowed the choice of ammunition for the gun and provided information on the ballistics of the round and the target to be engaged."
• "Increases in survivability came through the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system." Here's a clearer sentence:"Safety improvements included the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system."
• "Ultimately, Spain's AMX-30EM2s were replaced by brand-new Centauro anti-tank vehicles, although partially manufactured in Spain, in the early 21st century." although-->which were.
• "The other 149 AMX-30Es went through a reconstruction, focusing majorly on the improvement of the tank's mobility." How about, "The other 149 AMX-30Es were reconstructed to improve their mobility."
• "The reconstruction consisted on the replacement of the original French transmission with the American Allison CD-850-6A." on-->of.
• "Amongst the possible armaments for sale, Indonesia expressed interest in the procurement of the AMX-30." "Amongst"-->Of.
• "Although this deal fell through, in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments came to an agreement for the sale of between 33 and 46 second-hand AMX-30EM2s, which had recently been replaced in the Spanish Army." came to an agreement-->agreed on.

Lots of work to do on the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked on everything, although in some cases I tried something different. For the first point, the 20 to be produced in France were the 19 delivered to the Spanish Legion (so, the order was ultimately for 199 not 200) - I tried to change the wording to reflect this.

"This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably." -> I changed it to - This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT. It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably.

In the sentence about survivability, I kept survivability as safety and survivability are not the same thing when talking about tanks. Otherwise everything should be changed! In regards to British spelling, I believe the only thing I saw spelled in the British manner was Labour, since it's referring to the Labour Party - should I change it to Labor? JonCatalán (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job, you got almost everything! I fixed some things that you missed. As for the English consistency check and the MOS issues, I'll check that over tomorrow, and also review the content and non-prose things. Regarding your question—no, keep the "u" in Labour Party, don't change that. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In case it was missed, I changed "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%" to "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65% of the tank." Could you point out some examples regarding British spelling? I'm obviously inept at picking those words out! I also put hyphens between numbers and compound words. JonCatalán (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the one instance of British English that I saw (Americans don't hyphenate coordination). All em dashes were unspaced, and the nbsp's and the hyphens were also fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out "could be" from "It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably." I didn't want the sentence to imply that it could have been augmented, or it was slowly augmented, just that nationalization of production of the vehicle did increase. I hope that's OK. JonCatalán (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that in without thinking. No problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - few little typos:

• reponsible
• effecting > affecting
• options includes
• and ended in on 25 June
• steel side skirts > steel side-skirts?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In regards to "reponsible", I should start to pay more attention to my spell check! A question about "effect" and "affect". The word was changed to "affected" before, but I looked up affect and Wikipedia says - "The term Affect generally suggests an emotion." Is affect the correct term in this instance? But, everything else should be changed!. JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. Links checked with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. (Someday, someone will use a medieval latin source and I'll be forced to actually try to remember my "second language"... I live in dread of that day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Some things I noticed at a glance:
• Maybe stub that redlink in the lead?
• Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30[10] — partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks — the latter was sold at a cheaper price. Unspace the em dashes.
• France's GIAT also offered to modernize Spain's AMX-30Es to AMX-30B2 standards — this modernization was also being applied to French AMX-30s. Ditto.
• In the second image caption, "Zoom-in" → "close-up".
• Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks. Needs a source.
• However, the deal was canceled after José María Aznar was replaced by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as president of Spain — to seal the decision, the new Spanish government declared that Spain didn't even have enough AMX-30EM2s in working conditions to sell to Colombia. Another spaced em dash.
• Images look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the em dash had to be unspaced. Everything else should be resolved. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question, nice article but I was left wondering, was the tank ever used in an actual battle? maclean 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Although it was deployed to the Spanish Sahara, this province was abandoned some time after the unit was disbanded. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something worth mentioning in the article. --maclean 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention that the unit was disbanded in 1975 - although, it doesn't mention that this was before the withdrawal from the province (they aren't really related - it was just chance that it happened like this, although it might have been because the government saw no reason to deploy tanks with the legion in North Africa. But, this isn't supported by any of my sources). I believe that part of Spain's Brunete armored division was deployed to the Spanish Sahara during the Green March (with M47s and M48s), but none of these saw combat either. JonCatalán (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant the part about the tanks never being used in combat. Except the 4 training tanks, they were designed for combat situations, right? It seems relevant to me that they were never used in situations for which they were designed. --maclean 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be inferred by the lack of mention of their combat record? I could add a sentence which mentioned that, but I'm not sure where. JonCatalán (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - Images have correct licenses, good descriptions, and sources. You might think about alternating the images so that they are not all on the right-hand side of the article, as suggested by MOS:IMAGES. Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll play around with them. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, I think. Awadewit (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Tankety-tank-tank
  • The infobox gives its operating years as 1970–2002, but according to content later on it wasn't designed until 1974. ?? Perhaps it should be clarified in the infobox what this means (I see there is something of an explanation in the lead.)
  • The last paragraph of the lead needs beefing up (as in the article should have a three-paragraph lead), but I'm unsure if the content currently there merits mention as an overall summary of the article.
  • "...Simultaneously, Spain was testing the French AMX-30 between 2 and 10 June 1964.[5]" Woah now, we were talking about how the Spanish wanted a German tank, and the difficulties in exporting then, and then all of a sudden we're going French? Make its own paragraph or move to the one below, and add some transition.
  • "...However, it was not the advantages of the French vehicle itself that influenced the decision. Rather, it was" sounds like beating around the bush. Why not say "The decision was motivated by X and Y rather than the French vehicle's advantages" or something like that.
  • Any external links to find more info?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Some responses -

1. Well, the text explains that in 1970 Spain received 19 tanks from France, while indigenous production did not begin until 1974. So the tank entered service in 1970, although it was not produced in vigor until 1974.
2. The problem is that there's not much to expand the lead with. It should be noted that there have been articles to get through FAC with a two paragraph lead. I don't believe that the three paragraph lead suggestion is an actual rule - just something to base standards off.
3. I broke part of that paragraph into a separate paragraph, and the lead sentence is now - In the early 1960s Spain looked towards its European neighbors for a new tank.
4. Because it's a way of justifying the comparison between tanks to add some information on why Spain would have opted for one or the other, without actually agreeing that the AMX-30 was superior to the Leopard 1 in some ways (because then we'd get a round of edit wars on why the Leopard 1 was a better tank).
5. Unfortunately no, and I have never been a fan of external links since they are unreliable sources.

Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It should be noted that the E in the tank's name stands for España (Spanish for Spain). The same should be done with the Leopard 2E article. Mieciu K (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, will do. JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment what referencing formatting style allows you to have sources in the notes that are never fully amplified? E.G., what does "Rudnick, Atlantic Relations" mean? Please check the entire notes section for all such omissions. I suspect they should be fully listed in the References section. If so, then double-check to make sure everything in the Notes section appears in the References.
• Comment: wikilinking "future tank to Lince (tank) = "easter egg" link.
• Comment I'm seeing lots of informal/unencyclopedic language: "stands for", "looked to" etc etc. I may be able to make a full listing later, but primary editors could start working on this now...
• Comment prose needs work, e.g. "It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably." deserves a {{huh}}, or at least some grammatical improvements.
• Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. The notes/references sections need a burst of gnome work. More significantly, the prose needs some serious copy editing/buffing. Take for example the paragraph beginning "In May 1970 the Spanish...". The sentence beginning "This unit..." is separated by two sentences from the referent Bakali company. I'm not sure those intervening sentences are relevant anyhow; does it really matter how the tank was transported? Two sentences begin with repetitive structure, "However," then "Rather,". The second sentence has a decidedly snake-like appearance and an extraneous comma. Shouldn't the sentence beginning "The first contract with GIAT, in 1970.." logically be placed before the however/rather sentences? GIAT and 1970 in that sentence both seem redundant, given the opening sentence of the paragraph. Ummm, actually, couldn't you just merge the "first contract" sentence into the opening sentence of the paragraph? It seems to me that too much of the prose could easily be rewritten for clarity, meaning and flow. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose for now

• (E stands for España, Spanish for Spain) - is this more important than was a main battle tank, based on the French AMX-30, manufactured by Santa Bárbara Sistemas for the Spanish Army.? odd to deal with the trivia before the definition.
• Although the first AMX-30 tanks were acquired from France in 1970, production in Spain commenced in 1974 and ended in 1983. - Why although?
• The AMX-30E was the first mass produced tank in Spain and developed Spain's industry to the point where the government felt comfortable opening bidding for a future tank in 1985, and offered Santa Bárbara Sistemas the experience which led to the production of the Leopard 2E in late 2003. - a snake methinks
• Total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65% of the tank. - means presumably 65% of the tank was manufactured in Spain
• However, the United States' ban- however is rarely necessary
• were developed simultaneously, and sprung from the same common project - sprang?
• 400 millimeters (15.75 in.) - is it really accurate to 0.01 in? 16 in is near enough/
• The first 30 engines were to have 50% of the engine manufactured in Spain; the rest were to be 73% nationalized. - nationalize means owned by the state, I don't think that's what you intend to say.

Just too many errors to support at present jimfbleak (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There's too much redundancy, based on the fact that = because, In regards to improvement to the tank's firepower = To improve the tank's firepower. There are other snakes and odd expressions like to study a possible solution, and we have usage and too many alsos. This interesting article needs a good copy edit, it's close to FA but it is not ready to be featured yet. Sorry. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:OVERLINKING on Spain, Germany, American
• measurements should ideally be in British English, (so millimetre, not millimeter)
• Article is about a Spanish subject, so, IMO, the cost of the tanks should be in pesetas first with US$ in parentheses. I don't think it matters they were purchased from the US.
• Looks a little odd to see US spellings in a European article, but oh well.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.