The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 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
JonCatalan 20:02, 12 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
Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zaz zer
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
The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.
A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 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
JonCatalan 20:02, 12 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
Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zaz zer
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