Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M13 multiple gun motor carriage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I think it should be good for A-class, and maybe later on at FAC. It passed a GA review way back in May of this year and has gone through some minor changes since then. I'm welcoming all comments and suggestions. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source link for File:US_Army_M16_MGMC_AA_Half-track.jpg is timing out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Removed image you mentioned and replaced with a better one.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nikkimaria: just checking to see if you are happy with the change, Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I did a bit of copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes. I have the following other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]

this seems inconsistent: in the body the vehicle is described as "7 ft 3 in" wide, while in the infobox it is presented as "7 ft 1 in" Done
the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the article Done
this seems inconsistent: "tonne" v. "ton" Done
in the Bibliography you have "Zaloga (1994)", but this doesn’t appear in the citations; you have "Zaloga (2004)", though -- is this a typo? Regards, DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AustralianRupert: All doneTomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the conversions currently seem inconsistent, e.g. in the infobox metres appear first, but in the body they appear second after feet (this should probably be consistent); Done
be careful about overuse of the word "mount". For instance, "mounted on an M33 Maxson mount" (there are a couple of examples which should be reworded). Done AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggest the armament be mentioned in the lead (ie twin .50 cals) Done
- the caliber of the MGs isn't mentioned in the lead or in the body text, only the mark and manufacturer. Same for the infobox. One can't assume everyone reading the article knows the M2 is .50 cal. Done
the first convert template of each type should render as X feet Y inches, rest abbreviated Done
- I believe "cubic inches" should be "cubic inch". Done
- Sorry, I meant in the body of the article, not the infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]
there is a errant parenthesis at the beginning of the last sentence of "Early experiments" Done
the use of bold in the Variants section is not IAW MOS:BOLD, and the M14 bolding of a link is definitely a no-no Done
I'm not sure the listed vehicles are variants, perhaps "Similar vehicles" or "Prototypes" (if there was a developmental link with this vehicle) would be a better section heading? Done
suggest using refend and refbegin templates in the Bibliography to reduce size of the text Done
The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed Done
I have the same observation that I had with the M15 Halftrack article. "per WP:ELNO, what is it about afvdb.50megs that "provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it was an FA"? It just looks like a fanboi site to me, perhaps a fairly reasonable fansite, but nevertheless..." Done
the criticalpast website video would appear to be a PD link, but as you can't link it live without establishing that, I suggest it is treated in the same way as in the M15 article, as an EL. That creates a problem for sourcing what it is current citing. Done

~~Comments~~Support
- You might consider adding alt text but its obviously not an ACR requirement. Done
- Not sure about this construction: "M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (M13 MGMC)" specifically "(M13 MGMC)", I'd suggest reducing to just "M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (MGMC)" as M13 hasn't been abbreviated so there doesn't seem a point to include it inside the parenthesis. Done
- In the infobox you have an in service date of 1944 and in the text you state: "The M13 served at the landing at Anzio with the VI Corps of the Fifth United States Army in January 1944". Surely though the vehicles would have been delivered to the Army some time before then (at least to ensure personnel were appropriately trained etc before using them overseas). Do you know when deliveries began? And if so this date should probably be reflected in the infobox in this field. Done Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.