This is the shortest article I've nominated for feature article candidacy, and will probably be the shortest I will ever nominate. However, I feel that it meets all featured article requirements, including comprehensiveness (this article covers all thedetails and neglects none), accuracy (all referenced) and follows the style guidelines. The only length requirement is that the article stays on topic, without going into unnecessary detail, which this article does. As a result, I don't think it's short length should be grounds for not nominating this article. To save some people the trouble, all the sources are published and I gave the image of the BMP a proper summary table. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - controversial opinion. Strong Oppose - Too small to be comprehensive. The lead is also almost one third of the whole page. Drozd, Shtora, and other systems are easily able to be topics for expansion of this page. Also, the "active protection system" needs to be discussed more thoroughly. There are only a few sources besids Armour magazine used. This suggests that there is probably other information out there not examined. FA require a variety of sources, especially for NPOV. This seems to be one sided and limited on the topic. There seems to be no Soviet based sources (then) or Russian based retrospective discussions now (or, those with such point of views. Note thirteen discussions what "Russians" say, but doesn't give a source. This shows that there is other information that is neglected. This page needs a lot of work and other information before it can be an FA. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I will respond to your argument point by point. Drozd and Shtora (there are no other systems) have their own topics; the topic is not on Drozd and Shtora. One of the requirements for featured article candidates is that the article cover the topic, and not go into detail with subjects out of scope. As a result, your suggestion would only make this article less of a candidate for featured article status, not more. I, honestly, don't believe that you know the requirements for FAC very well, or you choose to ignore them just to push a point which is wrong and irrelevant. Active protection system also has its own article, which is wikilinked in this article.
There is actually a Russian source being used; that being Baryatinsky's book (which is translated and re-published). Furthermore, if you took the time to look at the other sources, you'd find that most of their information is from Russian sources (which I don't have access to). I don't think you know the topic very well, and obviously your oppose is based on this presumptions that you haven't really cared about checking for accuracy.
What information have I neglected to add? Why make these assumptions? Why not research the topic yourself, and see if I'm really missing information? The oppose is ridiculous; just as ridiculous as your arguments on IRC, no offense. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A single source does not meet NPOV. Here are some other sources you missed from a quick scan of Google books. 1. "
Learning from Their Mistakes: Russia's Arena Active Protection System", 2. " Jane's International Defense Review: IDR", 3. " Future Security - Page 142", 4. " Targets and Backgrounds VIII: Characterization and Representation : 1-3 ... - Page 416" etc. Thats just from a quick scan of one database. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If you read the article, you'd find that one of the sources were used (Learning from Their Mistakes, by Geibel). If you wanted to open the Janes article and see that it has the same exact information, it would also enlighten you a bit. But, I will add it as a source and just double cover the information. Maybe if I get 8kb in sources it will meet your "comprehensiveness requirements".. since obviously it now has more information. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To respond on your request on IRC, this is exact quote from the page: In the late 1980s, the Russian Army began development of the Shtora–1 electro-optical jammer. Shtora-1 is designed to jam incoming anti-tank missiles using a one-kilowatt infra–red radiator. Please, read the article before commenting. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it also has its own wiki article, which is wikilinked... which is why wikilinking exists. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I read through the article three times. Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth. Further problems: "As a result, the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau developed the Arena active protection system". This is the first and only time "Arena" is mentioned in the background. No origins of the project. No financing information. No anything on why it transitions into this or how it transitions. That line is also disconnected from the previous paragraph, which shows a large transition gap. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't insult you; I just said that you obviously have not taken the time to really research in order to back up your argument. You are just making false assumptions, in an attempt to debase the article. There is simply no information available on "financing", otherwise I would have included it; the origins of the project are included to the extent that there is information - that is, the reasons why it was included. The system is fairly new, and there is no information on its testing, et cetera (even for systems that are 60 years old, this information oftentimes just doesn't exist). JonCatalán(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
False assumptions? So, this was approved by no one? There was no government body that decided they needed it? The Russian military is one mindless entity without parts, groups, etc, that would determine a need? I know Russian weaponry, and I know they go through extensive testing and have an elaborate system of approval that isn't even hinted at. According to the page, this item appeared out of no where without any transition, determination, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"Insulting a reviewer about not understanding an article shows that the article is not comprehensive enough or discusses the topic in depth"? I'm at a complete loss. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this assumption? –JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It is in response to "To respond on your request on IRC". The article does not set up why there are two predacessors. It does not set up how they are connected. It just simply lists them, says some sort information on them, then abruptly declares that there was a new system. This is not enough background to even discuss the history of the item in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, if I could request that you stay on topic and reply to my points, instead of introducing irrelevant conclusions and straw men. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed over 6 of your military articles so far. If you are going to question my ability to review these articles, then I suggest that it is grounds for looking back at the old ones and disqualifying any past opinion. My qualifications do not suddenly change because you decide that you don't like my response. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) I'm sorry, but your pasts reviews are irrelevant to this one; they were on different subjects, and the grounds of your supports were different. Your ability to review is not collective. Please, answer my responses with relevant comments, instead of changing the subject. There is a link the background section; the background is explaining Russia's past experience with active protection systems. One system didn't lead to the other, but it offers an example of Russia's experience with these systems. I will add a sentence on how Arena is different, but it won't get the required 7kB of length to reach 20kB... your arbitrary length requirements. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The above user is unwilling to listen to areas that need to be expanded, discussed more thorougly, or necessary information to allow for context that a broader audience would require. The above user has also thrown around many accusations on the matter and the rest. My oppose will stand until the issues are addressed, and I will no longer respond here because the user has made it impossible to continue to discuss the review. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you please address my responses? By refusing to argue, and going in circles, it doesn't prove your point. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A couple of issues - firstly, is there a Russian name? Drozd & Shtora are both under the original names, but "Arena" sounds English - if there is an original name, we should probably discuss it somewhere. Secondly, a section comparing Arena to other APSes (other than its "ancestors") would be useful, I think; does it do anything exotic or unusual? Our article notes two Israeli systems and one American one, so there might be something there. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Arena is the Russian name. I could add a section comparing it to other active protection systems, I guess. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
On second though, I don't think it's proper. It would be tantamount to original research. There are no sources which really compare the systems, and adding details about other systems would be beyond the scope of this article and should be better left for their own articles (which exist). I would add a table with information on other systems, so readers can make their own conclusions, but other system's details are even more secretive (like Trophy, for example). Besides, the only other active protection system (hard kill) which has really been "deployed" is Trophy. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. On the other hand, namewise, we have the oddity of Drozd & Shtora, but not Arena, being italicised... Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen Arena italicized. I guess it should be; I'm not sure. It might be confused for an English word; I'm not sure what it's named after. There is a website, which would be deemed unreliable here, that mentions something interesting: rena's direct predecessor was Shatjor APS that was installed on the experimental Obiekt 478M MBT. Both systems have been designed by the Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau (KBP) together with other allied enterprises. I know the author and I will ask him if he could offer me some sources so that I could add this to the Wikipedia article. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I would advise Ottava to read Hurricane Irene (2005) before claiming the article's short length affects its suitability for FA status. Length is no indicator of quality.--Patton123 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated before, I would oppose these articles if I saw them or had time to review them. They do not meet the definition of encyclopedia and, after reviewing them, there are many problems within them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Back in the day, people !voted on an FAC based on the featured article criteria. I suppose this is no more, but to go around opposing articles because of your 20 kb length limit is WP:POINT. –JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Julian, short articles were never accepted in FAC before and this is lowering the standard. Short articles are impossible to truly be comprehensive and would require a complete redefining of said definition. Stop with the accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made no accusations. Also, may I ask what your interpretation of the "definition of encyclopedia" is? To me, it means we should be aiming to acheive "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of all human knowledge worthy of an article that is longer than 20 kb". –JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) What's this rot about a 20kb length? I intend to get M22 Locust to FA-Class, but that's only 29kb, and my other project, Light Tank Mk VIII is only 11.5kb - will you oppose that because it doesn't meet this arbitrary 20kb len gth despiute the fact the article is comprehensive, sourced to the best of my abilities and is well illustrated? Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC) If an article has been sourced to all relevant sources (as this seems to have been, avoiding mere repetition of information), then I fail to see why it cannot a) be encyclopedic and b) be a Featured Article. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And what about 13th Airborne Division (United States) which I just got to FA-Class a few weeks ago. Barely 21kb, yet I'd defy anyone to find anymore info about the division, or a more comprehensive article, in print or on the web - It's not that much longer than this article, and yet it's comprehensive and detailed with good sourcing, and now it's an FA. Yet it would have been opposed?!? Skinny87 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE to all: Stay on topic from this point forward, or all commentary will be moved to talk. There is no KB limit at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Support with Comments - Can't see anything wrong with the article; it appears to give all the detail it can given the limited English-language sources available, and it is quite a specific subject. Length doesn't seem to be a problem. Just one question; the illustration in the infobox. How do we know it's accurate with how the system works, the ranges and all that technical whizz-bang? What's it based off of, exactly? Official info? Skinny87 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point; the image is based on another image. I'll add a source to the image's description. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportWeak oppose for now. This is an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. However, it needs copy-editing. I have made some suggestions . Is the article in US or UK English? There is a mixture I think. On a minor point "Drozd" is Russian for "thrush" as in the bird. Graham ColmTalk 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is written in American English. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Skinny87 has done a slight copy edit to the article (thank you Skinny!). JonCatalán(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in the FA criteria about minimum length. This is a very interesting, and well-written article. The sources seem reliable and are cited appropriately. I see there was some discussion on comprehensiveness. This is not something I am qualified to judge — but there is more than enough information in the article to satsify my curiousity. Dare I say it; it was good not to have been bogged down by too much detail. Graham ColmTalk 18:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments - When I first saw the title, I thought it was an article on a stadium security system. Oh well. It's always good to review different types of articles, so I'm coming out of my sports shell and giving this a once-over.
"The system increased the vehicle's survivability up to 80%." Is 80% a general survival rate, or should it be "by up to 80%."? Also, I'd replace "survivability" with the aforementioned "survival rate".
"prompted the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau to design..." Redundancy with two "design" uses in such short order. Please change one of them to introduce more variety.
Background: "named Drozd. Drozd...", Again, another situation where more variety would be nice.
Perhaps change semi-colon after "It was composed of three main parts" to a colon?
Change en dash in "cone–shaped" to a hyphen. And do the same for "lock–on" and "infra–red", and audit for similar items elsewhere.
"between the elevations of -6–20 degrees..." Is what comes before the 6 supposed to be a minus sign? If so, there's a special code to create a minus sign, which is different than a hyphen. Make sure you use that. Also see a "-5–25" later.
"and between 40–60 degrees along the horizontal plane." References should usually be placed in numerical order.
Hopefully these will help reduce the amount of copy-editing that is needed. I'll come back at some point to review the rest, but I'm overloaded with reviews right now, meaning I may not be back for a while. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Most should be changed. In regards to the last comment, they are "ref name" footnotes, but I will change the order. Apart from that, I didn't change it to survival rate, since the "official" word is survivability (in regards to tanks). But, everything else should be fixed. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Before I continue, I should note that I did some work on this myself, mostly dash-fixing. Here is my second, and final, round of comments here.
Remove comma after "a number of forward-firing grenade discharges" (Shtora-1).
The quote "lack of time and funds" is covered by the reference at the end of the sentence, correct? Just want to make sure.
"One of the most dangerous threats to Russian armor werewas rocket propelled grenades fired from buildings in Grozny." This change will provide correct tenses ("One of the" and "were" now conflict).
"with the goal of providing Russian armor with more reliable protection against these threats." Don't like the two "withs" here. Can this be changed to get rid of one?
Typo: "including information such a flight parameters and velocity."
"Arena increase's a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5–2 times.]." The positioning of reference 12 is odd here. Why not just move it to the end of the sentence?
Third paragraph of System details has Drozd without italics. I noticed the system names now include italics; therefore, this one should have them too.
Reference 28 needs a publisher.
These are it from me, but I need to consider whether or not to support. I'm not a huge fan of short articles, but it does seem comprehensive for the topic, and it is interesting.
Alright, everything changed except for a couple of things. In regards to reference 12, after the number, I wanted to leave it there because it references that specific figure, as opposed to the sentence as a whole. The reference at the end of the sentence with the quote "lack of time and funds" does cover that quote, yes. Finally, instead of changing to singular in that sentence about the RPGs, I instead turned the entire sentence into plural (some of the most dangerous threats...etc). Hope that this is OK. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - After further review, I think the article's components are FA-quality, and that's what matters most to me. It is short, but that doesn't stop me from supporting. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Inquiry: Since the article subject is foreign in nature why don't we get see the native country spelling of its name like almost all other such articles? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This has already been brought up; Arena is the Russian name. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The IP has a point. Perhaps, like me, they can read Russian. Дрозд (thrush), Арена (arena). Why not just paste whichever is the right one into the article? Graham ColmTalk 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be original research? JonCatalán(Talk) 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd hope not - if it does it'd be a rather daft breach, to be honest, it's only providing a translation of a single word. Skinny87 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I don't like that there is no article on the Russian wikipedia on this. The translation suggested above (arena -> arena with cyrillic characters) should really be the translation of the entire title - "Arena Active Protection System" -> name in Russian. After all, the name of the article is not Arena, it is Arena Active Protection system, right? Furthermore does Arena have no equivalent in any other countries' weaponry? I was looking at Countermeasure and I did not see any comparable system.--Kiyarrlls-talk 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, do you have the translation? There are comparable systems, but I couldn't compare them in the article; it would be original research. Israel has introduced into limited service Trophy active protection system and are developing the Iron Fist active protection system. The United States is developing Quick Kill active protection system according to Wikipedia (from my sources, I believe Quick Kill was canceled and it's now called something else, but I'm not sure). The Italians are also developing an active protection system, as well as other European countries. I was thinking of starting a navigation box between them. What do you think? JonCatalán(Talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
In Russia it is referred to as "Арена-Э"  and you can see some film footage of it here . Graham ColmTalk 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That's Arena-E, the export version. What's the translation for active protection system? The problem is that I'm sure that the Russians have another terminology for these types of systems. For example, the translation from English to Spanish isn't direct. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I will find out. Meanwhile, I have pasted a rough translation of the article on the this FACs Discussion Page. Graham ColmTalk 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It's "активная система защиты" (pronounced "aktivnaya sistyema zashchity" —active protection system). Graham ColmTalk 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Added! Btw, I'd like to address your weak oppose as best as possible. So, any further commentary in regards to that would be great. Thanks. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I have just corrected myself.Graham ColmTalk 18:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very satisfied with the way my comments were dealt with. Thank you very much.--Kiyarrlls-talk 18:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - The article conveys the pertinent information clearly. I am satisfied that you have presented the available information and it is enough to warrant FA status, in my opinion. I was able to gain an insight into something I knew nothing about. A personal suggestion: I think Arena should be italicized both because its predecessors are italicized in the article, and because "Arena" is a common English word so italics would help the Arena stand out as a name in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Image reviewFile:Arena system.svg - Can you tell me what makes this site a reputable source for the image? I was amused but unconvinced by the statement "Sauron's Creations is a thing from an alternative reality, in which I happen to be a head of a programming company that bears this name. In this unjust and cruel world, however, it is simply my alias. It is, of course, strongly related to the world of J.R.R. Tolkien" but perhaps I am missing something? If this source is indeed unreliable, as I suspect it is, we will need to provide a reliable source for the information in this diagram. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That website has been used by Janes as a source before, on Soviet and Russian armor piercing discarding sabots. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, why does this make the site reliable? Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is a very simplified diagram of a defensive system that is described in the body of the article which is reliably sourced. There have been discussions about this on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive35#Original_research_and_images. But no consensus was reached on the requirement for sources of simple diagrams that only serve to illustrate and supplement sourced text. There is no original research in the diagram, it does not contain data, it is not a technical drawing from which anything can be made and it is unlikely to be challenged. I don't think a source is needed. Graham ColmTalk 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a source is necessary, particularly since this image is hosted on Commons. It is a courtesy to other users who may want to use this image on other articles on the English Wikipedia or on other language Wikipedias. This image is not "attached" to this article - it is independent. The more information that an image description contains, the easier it is for other people across the world to reuse that image. Let's share. Awadewit (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The source is given as [] own work, the artist courteously gives a link to a similar drawing. That the linked article has questionable reliability is not a problem in my book. It is not fair to place the onus on the nominator of this FAC to prove that a courtesy link on the Commons is reliable. The link is not relevant to this FAC. It is not about sharing; it's about whether this nomination meets the FA criteria. Graham ColmTalk 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the author of the website said that the Janes articles that do quote him do not actually state him as a source. Nevertheless, Janes is a very widely respected defense magazine; I think that it suggests the reliability of russianarmor.info. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Evstafiev-Chechnya-BURNED.jpg - It has just been brought to my attention that there is a slight problem with this image. Although the image says it was "self-made" by User:Evstafiev, the image can be found here, along with other professional photographs. Awadewit (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, the image has been changed with two new images. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Query, this is a confusing constuct, can it be reworded to avoid the minuses and dashes run together?
Shtora offers 360 degree all-around protection, between the elevations of ‒5–25 degrees.
I changed it to -5 and 25 degrees, instead of using an endash. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is a dedicated minus symbol, compare to the en dash: −– (minus, en dash). In addition, can you clarify "−6–20", as I don't know if both quantities are negative or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.