- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Source issues have not been adequately addressed; nominator has not edited on Wikipedia in the past two weeks.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
MBT-80 edit
- ... that the Cold War British MBT-80 tank was intended to counter new Soviet tanks such as the T-80 that were to enter service in the 1980s?
- ALT1:... that the MBT-80 would have been the first operational British tank to combine heating and air conditioning in the same vehicle?
- ALT2:... that the MBT-80 tank would have been one of the first military applications of the Ferranti F100-L microprocessor?
- ALT3:... that the EXP-28M1 rifled main gun of the MBT-80 would have been one of the first tank guns with a barrel made out of Electro Slag Refined Steel, had that tank been allowed to enter service?
- ALT4:... that the MBT-80 would have been a 'million pound tank'?
- Comment: This will be my fourth DYK credit, if approved.
5x expanded by Ceannlann gorm (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC).
Much of the article is sourced to two unreliable sources. This source is a forum post and this source is a blog. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SL93. TankNutDave is closely associated with the Bovington Tank Museum, so can be considered to be a RS. In a similar vein, the Secret Projects Forum among other things is well known for as acting as a sort of clearing house and information exchange for Military historians, Aerospace researchers, etc. from various countries. As such, it has been used as an RS for a fair few articles in different subject matters across Wikipedia over the years, being considered generally more reliable than your average internet forum. This is especially the case where the linked SPF post or topic in turn links to, or otherwise directly references, other reliable sources such as academic/reference works or contemporary official documentation for the information shown. If you are still worried, I could try and break out some of the RSs mentioned in the relevant linked topic and add them directly to the article as additional references? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm still not too sure of the blog being considered reliable. The other one is still an internet forum and what stops someone from registering and misinterpreting the sourced content or even just flat out lying? Some more content needs cites too - The end of the Armament section, the end of the Protection section, most of the Sensors section, and the entire Versions and Variants section. I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about the two sources. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll have to head away now, so any more inline citations will have to wait until tomorrow at the earliest, assuming other things don't get in the way (it's been one of those weeks). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Came here after seeing SL93's post at WTDYK. I'm afraid I have to agree with their conclusions; these sources do not appear to be reliable. This does not mean that the information provided by them is false, necessarily; but it does mean that we cannot rely upon them. One of the crucial criteria for reliability is editorial oversight, and accountability. A news organization has editors, who are in turn accountable to the owner. A blog is accountable to nobody. An internet forum even less so. As far as I could tell, I could get onto this forum tomorrow, and say plausible-sounding but incorrect stuff, and unless somebody noticed, there would be no consequences. Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ceannlann gorm: It's been quite a while since these issues were raised, and you have been active during this period. If you want to make improvements to it, you should do so quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde. I've already added more inline citations to the article as requested. I was just waiting for more comments here, and/or the aforementioned (apparently now archived for lack of contributions) discussion over in WT:DYK to progress, before coming back to this. Have to head away now unfortunately (your notification just caught me) so I'll make a more detailed response to the remaining outstanding issue, of whether or not the two queried sources are Reliable Sources, tomorrow. Thanks! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again. Now, as I already mentioned before, TankNutDave has a close relationship with the Bovington Tank Museum, to the point where the company routinely holds PR and educational outreach events at the museum (see linked youtube video for a quick example from a couple of years ago). In addition, it has a direct association with the Sveriges Försvarsfordonsmuseum Arsenalen located in Strängnäs, Sweden. TND, as it's also known, also routinely acts as an armoured vehicle consultancy, historical & otherwise, to organisations ranging from the BBC to Obsidian Entertainment (TND is actually part of the development team for Armored Warfare) to BAE Land Systems of all things. Not to mention that at least four of the senior staff can actually be considered to be qualified AFV instructors in their own right. TND also works with another company you may have heard of (especially if you are or have been a Top Gear fan) Tanks A Lot. With all of the above and the fact that it is a blog (somewhat ironically started as a modeling blog sideline of the company back in 2007) of a reputable & fairly widely known company rather than a personal blog it's not surprising that TankNutDave has already been used as a RS on a number of Tank/AFV articles throughout Wikipedia for at least a couple of years now. In a similar vein, the Secret Projects Forum since it's foundation back in 2006 or thereabouts, has gained a reputation both online and off as a very good resource for reasonably reliable (and even more importantly clearly sourced) information on various maritime, aviation, space, and defence subjects, with various well known historians and writers such as Chris Gibson and Bill Sweetman routinely contributing often well sourced historical data (including contemporary photographs, artist drawings, official documentation, etc.) alongside anonymous but knowledgeable posters from around the world. Any informed speculation or unclearly sourced information is normally clearly defined, or otherwise quickly flagged as such. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you cannot claim an anonymous person writing in a blog as a reliable source. Saying they are "associated with Bovington" is not good enough. The guy who sweeps the floor can legitamately say he is "associated", so can the lady who makes the tea. To make a judgement on whether TankNutDave is reliable we at least need to know who he is in real life. The relevant policy on this is WP:SPS which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Has TankNutDave been so published? Is there even an indisputably reliable source saying TankNutDave is reliable? SpinningSpark 17:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Has been open for a while; issues have not been addressed. Asserting that a reference is reliable when it does not a priori meet WP:RS is not really going to help. Vanamonde (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I respectfully but strenuously disagree. All issues raised have been dealt with in full. Also, in response to Spinningspark, he appears to have overlooked the fact that TankNutDave is neither a personal blog nor anonymous; it is a well established company blog with clearly identified contributors who are experts in their field, i.e. the development, technology & employment of tanks/AFVs. If a professional Armoured Vehicle consultancy (that is routinely used by BAE Systems and the BBC among other well known entities as already mentioned) can not be considered a reliable source on tanks and other AFVs, especially on historical matters such as the MBT-80 where it can not possibly have any conceivable conflict of interest, what on earth can be? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ceannlann gorm: You have provided a source which does not a priori meet WP:RS. You need to either replace the source, or get consensus at RSN or elsewhere that this source is reliable. You cannot simply insist that it is, and expect everybody else to come around. This has been open for far too long already. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)