Jump to content

Talk:M3 half-track/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article following its nomination for GA. I will post some initial comments/observations shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/observations: G'day, I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into this article, which is fantastic to see. There is a lot of great information and overall the article is detailed and well referenced; however, I think there are a few things to work through at this stage. I have taken an initial run through the article, and have some initial comments/observations, which I will place below here. If these can be worked on/addressed, I will come back and take another look at the article. Thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead probably needs expansion to cover the service history of the vehicle in other conflicts after World War II
  • this needs a citation: 6-cylinder gasoline engine with a compression ratio of 6:3:1, giving the vehicle a power-to-weight ratio of 15.8 hp/ton.
Could not find source for compression ratio, removed for now. The p/w ratio and infobox hp number seems to be based on information from "The encyclopedia of weapons of World War II", while the text states a hp cited to "American Tanks of World War II". Which one should I change the others to?
Either is probably fine, IMO. If they have contrasting figures, it would be best to contrast this in the text by citing both. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The M3 half-track is -- "is" or "was" (tense - is it currently in use, if not the article should probably use past tense)?
  • M3 can carry its... -- same as above. The article seems to mix past and present tense
Changed to past tense
  • the infobox mentions service in many wars (for instance the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, First Indochina War etc), but the service history does not cover these
  • Should International Harvester be added to the infobox as a manufacturer?
No, as they manufactured the M5 half-track, which was designed from the M3, but different enough to have it's own designation.
In that case, I'd suggest probably not mentioning them in the lead. Probably could be replaced by White Motor Company and/or Diamond T, which are mentioned in the body and infobox, but not in the lead. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted with my copy edit -- please check you are happy with this change and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • while steering is manual -- perhaps mention the steering wheel here, given it is mentioned in the infobox?
Removed the parameter from the infobox, as it is not there in any other half track articles.
Ok, makes sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this a quite reliable source. I have read many of their articles and they are well informed (as far as I can judge). However, this website is formally a blog with an anonymous author.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, thanks, do they cite their sources at all? If not, given that the author is unknown, and we don't know its editorial policy/publishing provenance etc, it is probably best to replace it with something else. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been busy counseling at a summer camp over the week, working on it now. WelpThatWorked (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too easy, thanks for making a start. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I have done some copy editing to help deal with a few of the above comments. Unfortunately, though, I cannot help with some of the content/coverage-related issues listed above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, again, please be advised that I intend to close this review as unsuccessful this weekend (next 24 to 48 hours), unless the remaining issues (related mainly to coverage and referencing) can be dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closed now. Per the below, the main issue is the coverage. There is also a need to rectify the citation needed tag. Please feel free to renominate once the identified issues have been dealt with. Thank you for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: checkY

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. 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: ☒N

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ☒N

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. checkY

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute checkY

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

External comment

[edit]

@AustralianRupert: Hello, I have contributed to this page so I can't review this GAN. However, this page has a big problem with the third criterium Broad in its coverage. There is nothing about post-war service. As said in the infobox, the M3 saw combat after the war in many conflicts (Lebanon, France in Algeria, Zaire, Israel, Lebanon) and nothing is explained in the text. I believe this article needs to be expanded to non-US users. @WelpThatWorked: if you need help to find some references, I can help you. Write first the new section titles and general ideas and then I will add more details. But I think I do not have enough references.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks, I agree, per my comments above -- "there are many operators listed, but only few of them are covered by the Service history section " and "the infobox mentions service in many wars (for instance the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, First Indochina War etc), but the service history does not cover these". I will leave the review open a bit longer to see if these can be addressed; however, these may be insurmountable in this review. I will look to close it as unsuccessful maybe next weekend if they haven't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Petit Chat: I have closed the review now as unsuccessful. If you have access to references that can help expand coverage, and you are keen to work on the article, please do so. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M3_half-track/GA3&oldid=911353517"