Talk:M5 half-track/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Btphelps (talk · contribs) 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review on Friday, November 13. Will probably take up to 7 days to complete it. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does a good job of listing the several variants, which can be confusing. But there are several obvious typos that should have been resolved before the nomination was submitted.

There are a lot of instances of passive tense, confusing who is doing what to whom. It (the article!) also uses "it" a lot and the antecedent reference is often unclear.

Other articles on similar vehicles have flags alongside the countries operating the vehicles. It seems like a suitable use here as well.

Due to the various issues described in the review below I'm failing it for now. Please fix these and re-nominate the article. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 05:28, 16 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 is confusing. It says "some differences had to be accepted." The passive tense creates confusion. Are these "differences" the difference between the M2 and M3 that makes the M5? Or are these variances from some prototypical M5 standard? Were these differences forced on the government, or originated by the government? "It was produced ..." Does "it" in this instance refer to the M5, or a variant of the M5? "could produced..." is a typo / bad grammar. "There also variants..." is a typo / bad grammar. "IH could produced an equivalent to the M2, which was the M9 Half-track..." Variants based on the M5 were exported to the UK and Soviet Union in one sentence, and in the next "It was supplied to Allied nation..." to "British Commonwealth, France, and the Soviet Union". I'm awfully confused. Was the M9, M13, or the M16 supplied to those three countries, or the M5? "and was developed into the M3 Mark A" Passive voice is confusing. Developed by who? How about "and they developed two variants they designated the M3 Mark A..." In the body: "as well its allies" is a typo / bad grammar. "could build them but changes in components and construction were necessary" The idea introduces and unanswered question. Why were the changes needed? "5⁄16 inch to the M3's 1⁄4 inch" and "300 yds rather than 200 yds" should be converted to metric. " testing at General Motors" Testing "by" GM or testing "at" GM's location someplace? Which? "was to produce" ... so did they produce them or not? I'm confused. "before production was stopped in October 1943" and "final vehicles were completed in September 1943" How can you complete vehicles in the month before production was stopped? "In 1955, M5s were used..." By the Israeli Army? Fix passive tense and it'll make the content much stronger.
	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).	Good references!
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Minor additional detail on why the specifications for the M5 differed from the M3 and who required these changes would be helpful.
	3b. 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.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.