Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M15 half-track

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M15 Halftrack

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

M15 Halftrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Prior nomination here.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I have fixed all problems from the previous review. The article has been expanded to include all of it's Korean War history, a major problem in the previous review. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support although I do have one question for you concerning the line "To enhance ground support firepower during the Korean War depots in Japan were searched for vehicles that could be refurbished for possible combat use." Is this as a result of the abysmal sate of the US/UN forces early in the war, or was this done to add more firepower after the war stalemated at the 38th parallel? The article doesn't say, but my on curiosity compels me to ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • this needs a reference: "and a maximum road speed of 41.9 mph (67.4 km/h). Its 60 US gal (230 l) fuel tank provided a range of 150 mi (240 km)." Done
  • the presentation of the word "half-track" is inconsistent in the article. For instance "Halftrack", "half-track" and "Half Track"
  • petrol --> gasoline (US English variation) Done
  • the figure of 2,400 built which is presented in the infobox doesn't appear anywhere else, so appears uncited Done
  • "An army report from North Africa" --> "A U.S. Army report from North Africa"? Done AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final concern, per WP:LAYOUTEL the box like Commons link probably should be moved out of the External links section (and that section header deleted). I've added my support, but I'll leave it up to you to decide how best to achieve this (my suggestion is to put it in the Bibliography, just below the header). Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed this article at GA, and have looked at the edits since it was promoted. I have a couple of fairly minor quibbles in addition to those already identifed:
    • The production figures in the body add up to 2,332, not ~2,400. I suggest the actual total is put in the infobox, per Rupert's comment above. Done
    • The Sd.Kfz. 251 itself isn't really a German equivalent to this vehicle, and in fact, the Germans didn't field anything like this one that I can recall. The Sd.Kfz. 251/21 with triple 20 mm guns was at least an AA halftrack, but I don't really see the point in this "See also", as there wasn't a German equivalent with one 37 mm and two 12.7 mm (or even close) Done
    • 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
    • suggest reducing the width of the citations subsection to 20em Done
    • The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed Done
    • the convert measurements in the body should be in full at first mention, then abbreviated. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review on this one, please? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentsSupport
    • Overall it looks fine to me, a few points though:
      • "Several M15 "Specials" managed to avoid the post-war scrap down" doesn't sound quite right to me. I can guess what "scrap down" means but could it be written more clearly? Perhaps "avoided being scrapped in the post-war period" or something like that?  Done
      • "...its mobility, enabling to work well..." is this a typo or is it an error in the source (keeping in mind it is a quote)? Specifically should it read "... its mobility, enabling it to work well..."  DoneAnotherclown (talk) 10:54, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/M15_half-track&oldid=920335287"