Talk:M3 half-track/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ykraps (talk · contribs) 12:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

More to follow but here are some preliminary comments to be getting on with -

General

 * On the plus side, the article is well illustrated, neutral and stable. I've yet to look at sources but a cursory glance suggests they'll be good. Most of the issues here appear to be with the prose.


 * Inconsistent Engvar - Mixture of American and British English.


 * Inconsistent spelling. Is it Half-Track, Half-track, half-track, Half Track, halftrack?


 * There are an awful lot of bullets. I think it's probably okay but be aware that too much could cause others to view this as a list rather than an article. See Manual of Style/Embedded lists.


 * Sources look to be good quality and reliable. There are inline citations throughout the article. Images are licenced and appropriate (except perhaps this one which appears to be an M5 Half-track).

Lead

 * ...the slightly longer M3 was extensively produced, with about 15,000 units and more than 50,000 derivative variants - I'm not entirely sure what's being said here. It seems to me that there were 65,000 units produced of which 50,000 were slightly different to each other and 15,000 were identical. If my assumptions are correct, the sentence ought to read, the slightly longer M3 was extensively produced with about 65,000 units of which more than 50,000 were variants.


 * ...more than 50,000 derivative variants - The word derivative seems redundant here.


 * The developers attempted to use as many commercial parts as possible - Why attempted? Did they not succeed? Otherwise just say, The developers used as many commercial parts as possible.


 * There were also several dozen variants for different purposes - We have just been told there were 50,000 variants and now we're being told there were only a dozen. Were there perhaps 50,000 modifications to a single variant? Also this sentence seems somewhat redundant given what's been said in the previous and following sentences.


 * Its variants were produced by a large amount of factories, like International Harvester... Makes no sense. You are saying that International Harvester is a large amount of factories. Do you mean including International Harvester?


 * ...produced by a large amount of factories - Doesn't sound quite right to me. What about a large number of factories?


 * Unless you are talking about some other alliance, say ...it was used by most of the allies of World War II at some point, and add a link.


 * Although at first unpopular due to its lack of significant armor and a roof to protect from shrapnel, it was used by most of the Allies at some point in the war. Excessive wordiness. Why not, Unpopular because of its lack of armor, it was nevertheless used by most of the allies of World War II or similar?

Specifications

 * The T48 Gun Motor Carriage – This is confusing. Is this another name for the M3 half-track or is this a component? Either way, it needs to be explained.


 * The suspension consisted of a leaf spring for the wheels - Which wheels, the two at the front?


 * ...while the front tread - Are we talking about the track part here because that's at the rear, isn't it?


 * White 160AX – Presumably White is the name of the manufacturer. Anything this can link to? Ah, I assume this is White Motor Company so link here and remove the links in the Design and Development sections.


 * What does the p stand for in p.6-cylinder?

Design

 * There's some repetition from the previous section - We've already been told it has a White 160AX engine and that the front suspension was leaf spring while the tracks had vertical volute spring. Perhaps some of the design section belongs in the specification section?


 * Link synchromesh


 * The track was a endless rubber-band – an endless rubber band.


 * Link pintle-mount


 * More repetition - Racks under the seats... ...additional racks behind the seat backs... ...a small rack for mines... What about Racks under and behind the seats held the squad's rifles and other stowage. A small rack for mines was added on the outside of the hull just above the tracks.


 * In combat, most units found it necessary to stow additional food, rucksacks and other crew stowage on the outside of the vehicle - Why specifically during combat? Why was 'additional food' required? What is 'crew stowage'?


 * The later M3A1 adopted a raised, armored 'pulpit mount' for the .50-caliber, and .30-caliber (7.62 mm) machine guns could be used from mounts along the sides of the passenger compartment - This is confusing. Were both .50 and 0.30 used with the pulpit mount and the side mounts? It might be better to split into two sentences. The later M3A1 adopted a raised, armored 'pulpit mount' for the .50-caliber, and .30-caliber (7.62 mm) machine guns. Both weapons could also be used with mounts on either side of the passenger compartment. Or similar?

Development

 * The development of an armoured half-track began with OCM 14188 to convert a M3 Scout Car into a half-track doesn't make sense to me. What is OCM14188 for a start?


 * The development of an armoured half-track... - Sudden switch to British English (spelling and hyphenation).


 * ...but had a larger front wheel and a shorter front - Just the one wheel?


 * Throughout 1939 and 1940, the M2 Half Track Car was prototyped and developed by the Army... - This is confusing because I thought we were talking about the development of the M3 and now it turns out we're talking about the development of the M2. Explain how the M3 developed from the M2, not how the M2 became the M3. I don't think we need to know much, if anything, about how the M2 developed as it has its own article.


 * The armor consisted of 1/4 inch of hardened armour plate - Br and Am spelling in the same sentence. Also, can this not be rewritten to avoid repetition of the word armour? Perhaps just say The armor consisted of 1/4 inch hardened plate. Do you know what the armour was made from? Steel?


 * Tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1938 proved it unsatisfactory - Proving and proved together sounds awkward. What about, 'found it unsatisfactory'?


 * ...proved it unsatisfactory due to the front-wheel drive - I don't think you can have a front wheel drive half-track; surely the tracks must have to push the vehicle. Do you mean that the scout car was unsuitable for conversion to a half-track because of the front wheel drive?


 * Throughout 1939 and 1940, the M2 Half Track Car was prototyped and developed by the Army at Aberdeen Proving Grounds - Again, confusing. Has the article not just discussed the development of the M2? And if so, isn't this sentence somewhat redundant? Or at the very least, out of place.


 * More repetition - Aberdeen Proving Grounds is mentioned three times in the same paragraph. Can we say the facility, the centre or test area?


 * The M3 was equipped with two M1919 machine guns and an M2 Browning machine gun - Exactly the same sentence as in the previous paragraph and with the same links. And in the design section earlier, you also wrote, that mounted a .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun", and again linked it. In the design section, you could simply put, "...that mounted either a .30 or .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun". In this section, on the second mention, you could say, "carried the same armament as the T7 prototype" or similar?


 * The M3 added a rear door and five additional seats in the rear - The M3 didn't add the rear door and 5 seats to itself. Surely you mean, a rear door and five additional seats were added?

Service history

 * Initially, there were multiple complaints... - The word multiple is redundant; you can't have a single complaints.


 * ...several mechanical difficulties - Ditto; you can't have one difficulties.


 * The M3's first use for its intended role... - What was its intended role?


 * Each armored division had 433 M2s or M3s, 200 in the armored regiments and 233 in the armored infantry regiment - Can anything be done here?


 * Another major issue with the M3 was that its rear idler broke... - This is in the wrong place and needs to be fitted in where mechanical dfficulties were mentioned earlier.


 * ...the M3 served in Sicily and Italy and received positive reports of it in action - The M3 didn't receive reports. Do you mean, ...and positive reports were received of it in action? And if so, by whom?

Production

 * Total production of the M3 and its variantsran to nearly 65,000 vehicles - Variants ran (two words).

Variants

 * There seems to be a few variant spellings too. :) In this section, there is one example of 'halftrack' (all one word) but throughout the article there are hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms, and inconsistent capital use.


 * I think this section should be about variants of the M3 half-track, as that is what the article is about, but it looks to me that it also contains information about the M5 and M9 half-tracks.


 * ...and, by the same token, perhaps it should also only contain images of M3s. So not ?

Summary
The article fails on criteria 1 (well written) and 3b (focussed on the topic). I found it an awkward and confusing read with lots of repetition and poorly constructed sentences. Although it addressed the main aspects of the topic, it didn't stay focussed; wandering off on a number of occassions to discuss models that didn't seem quite relevant, while some sentences appeared to be out of sequence. In all other respects however, the article is good. I'll put the article on hold for 7 days but if this seems like a lot of work, you could withdraw the nomination and ask for a copyedit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and perhaps get a Peer review as well.--Ykraps (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing
I am closing this review as failed because the nominator hasn't shown any interest in the discussion. I have since discovered that some of the things that concerned me were also noted in the first GA review and weren't addressed then either.--Ykraps (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)