Talk:M22 Locust/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good Article critera, and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed reviewing this article under the criteria, and am placing it on hold until my few concerns below are addressed. However, this is a very good article and very close to passing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * An ndash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article, and between page ranges used in citations; most of these have been done, but there are a few that arn't.
 * I think I've done all of these!


 * "... during the Battle of France and was considered ..." --> "during the Battle of France and were considered ..."
 * "Its size limited the possible crew to three, a driver in the hull and a gunner and commander in the turret, and this was found to be too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively." This is slightly confusing, and could do with a slight re-word. Perhaps: "Its size limited the possible crew to three&mdash;a driver in the hull and a gunner and commander in the turret&mdash;which was found to be too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively."?
 * "This request was made by British Air Commission ..." --> "This request was made by the British Air Commission ..."
 * All above done!


 * A Non-breaking space should be used when refering to the size of a gun. Such as "... armed with a 37 millimetre ..." instead of "... armed with a 37-millimetre ..."
 * Not sure how to do this without deleting the template. Do you know how, by any chance?
 * Damn, I didn't realise a template was in place there (even though it is obvious, lol). I actually have no idea, so don't worry about this one. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "On 25 October the squadron received a shipment of seventeen Locusts, and during November the new tanks were issued to the squadron, replacing a majority of the Tetrarchs, although a small number of Tetrarchs fitted with a 76.2-millimetre (3.00 in) infantry support howitzer, which were designated as Tetrarch 1 CS (Close Support), were retained." - This sentence is a bit thick, and could do with some breaking up and a slight re-write.
 * Broken up and re-written!


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * My only concern in this area is that the majority of citations are from the same source (Flint). Would it be possible to substitue some of the Flint citations for another reliable source?
 * I wish. Flint is the only book to cover the Locust in any detail - the same for the Tetrarch which I'm putting up for ACR at the moment. I'm afraid that's all there is, really. Will that be a problem?
 * No problem; a number of other sources are still used. It is more about diversity than anything. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Would it be possible to expand on the tank's involvement/use during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?
 * Same as above really; I was lucky to contact an editor who had a book giving that much small detail. I'm afraid there's no detail about what the Egyptians did with the Locusts during the conflict.
 * I suppose a mention is a lot better then nothing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well, any and all of my concerns have been addressed and I'm satisfied that the article now comfortably meets the GA criteria. Congratulations on another Good Article! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)