Wikipedia:Peer review/M22 Locust/archive1

M22 Locust

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a Good Article review and a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I'd like to take it to FAC when this Peer Review is over. Main concerns are prose, which is never my strong point, and MoS compliance. I also welcome analysis of my sources, although I'm confident that I've exhausted all available WP: Reliable Sources.

Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was invited to provide a citation review here.

1. Short cites check out fine. The choice of Author with titles used to differentiate is a great one for history. You could consider having the short citations end in full-stops (I think it looks cleaner, but this is totally a personal thing).

A nice idea, and I've enacted it!

1. Chamberlain & Ellis in the short citations differs from the bibliography which is Chamberlain; Ellis. This is up to your own tastes really, because its not inconsistent within sections. I just like pushing multiple author consistency between the short citations and the bibliography.

Couldn't figure out how to correct the template in the Bibliography, so I changed it to the latter example in the short cite in the article; could you check that's consistent now?

1. You'll want to add Locations for your References section. If you're on {{cite book}} you'd want |location= ; when using |location= you have some options. International cities don't need further identification, London: Penguin. Cities so well known because of a press association can stand alone, Harmondsworth: Penguin. or if you don't like that way, all presses can have their major sub-national unit and formal state listed. ie: Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Or Sydney, NSW, Australia. Or New York, New York, USA. Please remember: popular sub-national units (Russia for USSR, England for UK) are inappropriate. All US states should be put as State, USA. If using contractions on US states, use a consistent set, and only contractions.

Not entirely sure what I'm doing here; I'll see what I can add and then come back here to tell you, if that's okay.

Okay, added all locations, not sure if they're all done correctly.

1. Is this really a hyphen: "Army - Airborne Forces"?

No, and I can't believe this, but I got the title wrong - doesn't need the 'Army' bit, just 'Airborne Forces'. I'll correct it in other articles as I go.

1. You're missing a comma between the title and the pp. "Zaloga, Armour of the Middle East Wars pp. 4–5"

Done, thanks.

1. Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources, tertiary sources include articles, cite the article using {{cite book}}'s |chapter= and use |pages= in the bibliography to indicate the pages spanned. Indicate the article's author (anonymous? named?) indicate the encyclopedia's editors. What makes the article's author an expert whose tertiary opinion can be relied upon? (Ie: what makes this a reliable source).

Uh, hopefully this is only for Bishop, but I'm not sure how to do this with Bishop - no idea who wrote the entry, either. Could you help out with this bit?

1. Is this part of a relevant book series (ie: on universal tanks)? Fletcher, David (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War Part 2.

Nope, Fletcher just called it that, the previous one is called 'The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour...' I don't think that makes it part of a series, he only did the two books anyway. Let me know if I need to add anything.

1. You may want to check on the Manual of Style for the capitalisation of titles.

Will do!

1. I'd want reassurance about the high quality of the illustrated sources?

I'll talk about this at the bottom, to keep it all in one place.

1. I'd want you to describe how you searched for journal articles: but I'm not familiar with military equipment journal articles, military science tends to concentrate on leadership issues... in general, it helps to explain how you've exhausted sources for historical articles with a low source count. (I'm aware that the Locust doesn't draw the imagination of tank history authors).

Let me start this here, and maybe expand on it tomorrow. Obviously, firstly I did the usual Google, Google News and Google Scholar search: nothing in those of any help, annoyingly. When I was doing my MA at Warwick University I used my access to JSTOR and the like to see if there was anything, and there wasn't. I'm not sure what else I could look for that I'd have access to. Oh, and anything the National Archives at Kew would have - looked through there for secondary stuff. Is that enough to satisfy you, or can I do any more?

I'll also point out that Flint seems to have gone over all of the possible military journals for the Locust as well as the Tetratch, and especially for the former there are very few, mostly from the odd modelling magazine and regimental journal. Nothing that I could really get my hands on, which is annoying as I wouldn't mind reading some of them anyway.

1. Oh, also, we don't give authors titles unless they're part of their name, "Otway, Lieutenant-Colonel T.B.H (1990)" should be "Otway, T.B.H."

Done!

1. On a side note, the lede appears a bit long for the article? There's style advice about lede size out there. WP:LEDE perhaps?

Hmm, I'll double-check this and see if it can't be trimmed down a tad.

I quite like this article, it was a nice read when I was reading about airbourne tanks and armoured vehicles. I hope I've explained the citation issues present clearly enough? Your citations aren't missing any major information pieces, except the press locations, and the articles referred to in the encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the really quick response - I'm glad you enjoyed it. I've got to pop off to work now, but I'll get through these tomorrow; I'm glad to see that there aren't any huge problems. I'll re-check for journal articles and the like as well, while I'm at it. As for Bishop, he's only used for one cite, so it isn't a huge deal if he has to go, though it might mean a slight rewrite; how would I prove he's a HQ reliable source? Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and the same for Tucker; if he isn't a reliable source, then this article might have a few problems. What's the usual route for arguing that they're both High Quality, Tucker especially? I found that, in researching the Locust, a number of books understandably got them mixed up with the Tetrarch, and Tucker was one of the few that didn't, which would seem to put it head and shoulders above many other sources. Any ideas would be a help. Skinny87 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Key points to a HQRS: If its an encyclopedia article, if it is a specialist encyclopedia, and if the article in question was written by a specialist who actually signed their name to it (not the encyclopedia editor generally, they tend to write the short poor quality articles and sign their name over actual staff writers). For sources in general, is the press academic or commercial specialist? Was the source reviewed favourably by the specialist presses dedicated to that area? Finally (and only if the others don't work), is the author a recognised expert in the field. Obviously recent works in academic or dedicated specialist commercial presses would be the best! Its okay to not be entirely HQRS for Featured Article Candidates, as long as the majority of the work is derived from HQRS, and the WEIGHT and core narrative has been set by HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we go! I've knocked down Tucker and Bishop to a total of four citations, as the others were merely duplicates that can easily go without compromising the article. Of those four, all of the Tuckers can potentially be replaced by Chamberlain and Ellis once I get access to it on Friday (My copy is at the regimental museum I volunteer at) which only leaves the Bishop citation. This is slightly more awkward, as the history of the Locust is rather piecemeal at times: the Bishop cite states that the tank was chosen by the War Office to be transported by glider. Seems obvious, I know, and I can probably find something to replace it with, but it would be a tad awkward. I can't really defend Bishop as an HQRS - the [About Us for his publisher] doesn't exactly make me confident about them. Ironically Tucker's publishers, ABC-Clio, the one I can hopefully replace, seems a lot more defendable. Their [About Us page] mentions a number of awards and they would seem to be more rigorous, although I'm not really sure what I'm looking for. Neither author seems to be academically-known in any way, unfortunately. So, as it stands: Tucker can probably be replaced and might be reliable(?); Bishop would be more awkward to replace, and would not seem to be an HQRS. I leave my sources to your mercy, and any advice you could give :)

Ah, I didn't realize Chamberlain and Ellis had 'Illustrated' in their title as well. I think they can be deemed HQRS, as they publish a number of military history books and so forth, but I can't find a website for them. I think they've been subsumed under Orion, as it states here somewhere at the bottom: [Orion Publishing About Us]. Orion seem quite reliable and a fairly big publisher, and I have stacks of Cassell-published history books at home, if that helps. Both of the authors have published other books on military history, tanks specifically, although I can't figure out how to do that Google thing where you can see if a certain book has been cited. If Chamberlain and Ellis aren't HQRS, or at least good RS, then I'm sunk really. I'll be back in a while, this is giving me something of a headache.

(od)Okay, I think I can source everything to Chamberlain and Ellis that is currently cited to Tucker, which would leave only the one Bishop citation, which I'll work on. I think two are better than three, especially since I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that C&E are much more likely to be HQRS than Tucker or Bishop - better publisher, authors have published numerous books on the subject and so forth. But, of course, I leave it yo your opinion, Fifelfoo. Skinny87 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And everything from Tucker is now sourced to Chamberlain and Ellis. That just leaves one citation to Bishop. I think C&E would qualify as HQRS, per my comments above, though how I'd go further to prove that I haven't a clue. I'm also unsure how to edit the Bishop citation to show it's an encyclopedia article, as I don't know who authored the article on the Locust. Skinny87 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bishop is gone as well, as a closer read of Flint gave me the needed citation. Skinny87 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name

• I was asked to check alt text. I made a few changes, but it looks good, except...
  • I'm concerned about File:M22-littlejohn-adapter-01.jpg. It's cited to the US Ordinance Dept but only two images on the source page are cited there and that isn't one of them!
  • There are other images that say they are "possibly" made by Allied soldiers (on their file pages). How do we know they are, and not copyvios? I think a few of those images will have to be removed before or during FAC.
  • It's not entirely obvious (to me) that the tank is moving in the action shot (File:M22locustincombat.jpg).
  • It's also not entirely clear the people here are wearing overalls (image looks washed out, etc.). Also, the source image is dead and its source page seems a bit biased ("If we persist in foot-slogging its a dumb choice born of narcissism not an inevitability. ... We certainly don't like the POS Pandur but at least here, its being shown being LVADed from a C-130...")—I wonder if there's a better source with better images.
  • I wonder why the damaged tank in Israel (File:M22-locust-negba-2.jpg) doesn't have the two sets of handles in front—it doesn't look like they were shot off. Maybe their absence might warrant a mention in its alt?
• No dabs or dead external links—good.
• I read the lead and some of the "Background" and it looks reassuringly clean and accessible. If the rest of the article is that good, you're probably ready (but I'm no specialist in tank articles, so I hope the A-class project review caught remaining content problems).

--an odd name 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, very much appreciated! I have edited the alt text to state that the Locust is simply on the road moving through the field. As for the other photographs, I have to agree with you about their dubious status. I certainly won't want to use any possible copy-vio images, so I've removed them from the article. I'll take another look in the IWM Collections and the Library of Congress to see if I can find any with correct licensing. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sad to see the images go, but we should always be sure that what we use is free (or, at least, not free).

Finally, this article has a redlink to gyro stabilizer, but the dab page Stabilizer has a redlink to Gun stabilizer. One of those should change, unless gyro is only one notable type of gun stabilizer. --an odd name 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gyro stabilizer changed to Gun stabilizer; I'm sure they're the same thing. Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So many nice images of the Locust on the 'net, but none I could find that have copyright information. So, I've added Public Domian pictures of the Hamilcar and the Tetrarch instead, to fill in the gaps. Skinny87 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I reckon the article is comprehensively referenced enough, and to me it seems quite clear where a ref is supporting several sentences or even a paragraph. However, I know that some editors like to see refs for almost every sentence going! There are, for example, only 5 refs in the Operation Varsity section and that sort of thing might come up at FAC, so I thought it worth mentioning now.
• Could the M and G numbers be explained in the See also section?

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Couple of extra refs from Flint added, as they can't do any harm. I got rid of the M and G numbers - I'm not sure who put them there, but I can't see their relevance and couldn't explain it if they stayed. Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments looking principally at prose:

Lede

• "who in turn selected Marmon-Herrington" The Ordnance Department is not a person, accordingly "which" is probably better than "who"

Second paragraph, second sentence: too long, I'd split this into two.

Background:

• "under the orders of the" Perhaps "by order of the"
• "5.5 tons". You need to convert this.
• "although it would have to be specifically designed" The tank or the glider?
• "The War Office also considered" perhaps "The War Office was also aware"

Development

• "The front of the hull was altered from a stepped appearance to a more sloped shape, which would provide for a better ballistic shape;" Double use of "shape". Perhaps "profile" or "outline"?
• "No American combat units were equipped with the tank, although some of those produced were used for training purposes[3] although two experimental units were formed and equipped with Locusts." Too many althoughs. You might want to check each use of "although" and "however" and see if some can be cut.

Faults

• "United States Ordnance Department". Slice the country name.
• "believed that it would not be able". Wrong tense. I would submit that "indicating" rather than "believing" would be better. If you mean this to refer to the Board rather than the report, then I think no change is needed.
• "armour". This is an American tank. Shouldn't American spellings be used? And date styles?

Oh dear, I'd forgotten that. I'll correct all I see, but US spelling isn't my forte.

• "had been fired from the gun, the resulting shell-burst was so weak that observers had difficulty in seeing where it had impacted". Suggest "was fired ... where it impacted." Other instances of this in the article. I believe the pluperfect is to be avoided.

Fixed this example, but not sure what the pluperfect is. I'll look it up.

Initial service

• "Instead the squadron" Since "Instead" requires something before, it is an odd usage to begin a paragraph with it.
• "Several of the Locusts also were fitted with Littlejohn adaptors to increase the range and penetration power of its main armament" Shouldn't that be "their"?

Operation Varsity

• "whilst". Even if you are correct to be writing in British style, the word "whilst" is strongly disliked at FAC.

Post-war

"United States of America". Probably not good link this late in the game.

That's about all I have. Well done. Check on the US v. British and decide which is proper, watch the however/although, and be careful of a tendency to join what might well be two sentences together with a semicolon. I can't comment on the military aspects of the article, but the prose should not be a major hitch at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of the comments, very kindly done. Everything;s been fixed, with the exception of the pluperfects - I'll look them up and see what needs to be done. And the same for moving UK to US spellings, although that might be a problem given that I'm from the former! Skinny87 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)