Talk:M3 half-track/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Btphelps (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The lede seems a little shy in summarizing the article. For example, it says, "Although at first unpopular..." Tell why. It appears that the Israelis were key and late users of the design, but this variant isn't mentioned in the lede. The lede states, "... serving on all major fronts throughout the war. Although at first unpopular, it was used by most of the Allies at some point in the war." Isn't this contradictory: all major fronts --> most of the Allies ?? There is some overlap or redundancy in the prose which needs to be brought together to improve the content quality: In the lede, it says: In the 1st graf, "more than 50,000 derivative variants manufactured..." The idea is continued later in the 2nd graf, "There were also several dozen variants for different purposes." In Service History, it says: In the first graf, "There were multiple complaints due to several mechanical difficulties." And in the second graf, it continues the same thought, "Chief complaints centered around..." The two sections on Design and Development confused me. I expected to find elements within the Design section that are in the Development section, like the number of soldiers the vehicle was design to carry. The prose ought to: describe the inspiration for the design (the needs that propelled the creation of the vehicle) provide some general info about the design details that the manufacturers had to meet (features and specifications) describe the evolution of its development (when design work began, when prototypes were produced, when production began, where it was made, who made it, when production ceased, when it stopped being used, and what superseded it) In Service History, I'm confused about its first use. In the first graf, it says "it was quickly put into action when the Japanese attacked the Philippines with the Provisional Tank Group." In the second graf, it says "The M3's first use for its intended role was during Operation Torch." Which first use is correct? The use of the phrase "as for" in the "M5A1 – As for the M3A1..." confuses me. Does this mean "as with the M3A1" or "like the M3A1"? What does "rounds" mean in this context: "Later variants featured a purpose-built gun shield (59 rounds)." Is this the magazine capacity, or what?? Some of the variants list the rounds, and others don't. The inconsistency is confusing. I think the article could be better linked to related articles, include the Ordinance Department, and if articles exist for others, link M32 anti-aircraft machine gun, the M2HB machine gun, the M49 machine gun, .50-caliber machine gun, .30-caliber machine gun, M1897A5 75 mm gun, M1A2 37 mm autocannon, and others. Overall, the prose needs to be beefed up. I suggest adding more background about the vehicles' development, beginning in the 1920s and through the '30s, which will help readers understand the need for the design. In addition, the article needs more information about its usage as a prime mover and reconnaissance vehicle.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Valid sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well-cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Within the context of this article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All properly vetted and suitable.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Failing as requested by nominator.

Wow! So many issues! Can you close (fail) it for now and I'll try to fix the issues later. I might renominate it and you pick it up once again. BTW, this looks a little too much for a GA review. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job of organizing all the variants and providing sources. It's the prose section that needs some work. I'm sorry you feel the issues described are out of scope for a GA review. Some articles I've written and submitted for GA are much longer and subject to much more scrutiny than this. See, for example, Wyatt Earp and Battle of Remagen. Just because this article is shorter doesn't mean it merits less consideration for GA. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]