Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M2 light tank

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M2 light tank

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has historical significance and was one of the milestones in American tank development. The article has passed a GA Review (by Parsecboy). The article (in my mind) meets most A-class standards. The article has several comprehensive supports, a lead that summarized the article, and images have license tags or fair use rationales. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: thanks for your hard work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some of the specifications in the infobox seem inconsistent with what is in the body of the article. For instance: "14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) long" v. "Length: 4.43 m (14.5 ft)". Please check that everything mentioned in the infobox matches the body
equally there is inconsistency between the body of the article and the infobox in terms of what number is presented first (e.g. ft/in or m)
the composition of the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body (e.g. commander, loader, driver, co-driver)
the number of rounds carried is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
there is a "not in citation given" tag that should be rectified
Finished while you were commenting.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the lead says "one .50 M2 Browning machine gun", but the Specifications section says "two .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning heavy machine guns"
"FM 23-80 37-mm Gun Tank M5" appears as a short citation, but there is no corresponding long reference in the References section
All are addressed except the FM one, since I do not even know what it means.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That FM one is my fault. Result of a quick fix on the description of how the mount worked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An update, have found some statements in the article which are not supported by the citations as given. There was also some cases of near direct quoting from source and/or too close paraphrasing of source. Suggest assessment put on hold until these issues are addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "There is evidence that indicates those 36 M2A4s were shipped off from North Africa..."

Can this be elaborated on? The implication of the sentence is that either of the two regiments were equipped with the M2 in North Africa, which I can almost say with certainty is not the case. If I am not mistaken the of all history has a table that breaks down the tank type and the M2 is not listed.

The two regiments mentioned in that sentence were the regiments that used it in Burma, not North Africa.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the regiments were dispatched to Burma, they were not - as far as i am aware - equipped with the M2, rather they were equipped with the M3. Following their redeployment, practically every source mentions them still equipped as such and it seems they were literally thrown into the fighting with little time to acclimatize etc. The two sources used, which state there is evidence for their employment within the two regiments, do they state when the regiments were possibly given the tanks/trained on them etc? How they came about using them despite shipping to Burma with their equipment?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for when the two regiments were in Burma, one of the chaps on the project has a copy of the OH for India and Burma and may find something else, however every account I have read states the two regiments were equipped with M3s ranging from General Slim, regimental accounts, a boast of historians, and the published books by the chaps at the British tank museum. I am not saying remove it, but what's there needs to be better worded IMO as there is a lot of contradicting information out there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is going to sound harsh, but... When I first read the article in its previous state I could barely make sense of it. The lead was completely confusing, the history section was both repetitive and contradictory, and the article sections were disorganized. I can't believe this passed a GA cycle. In any event, I've been trying to beat it into shape by re-organizing the lead and the body sections, and trying my best at the history. However, the article still retains many contradictory statements, especially about armament, and the specs need to be re-done as a table. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:08, 14 March 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.