Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/T30 howitzer 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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage

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

Featured article candidates/T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments:~~ just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"declared as substitute standard" --> do you mean "substandard"?
the first paragraph of the Service history section seems a bit abrupt. Perhaps it would be smoother if you discussed how it was generally employed first before providing a specific example?
"because of the reconstruction of infantry battalions" --> do you mean their reorganization?
in the Citations, should "Hoffman (2013)" be "Hoffman & Staary (2013)"?
in the Bibliography you mainly seem to abbreviate the states where the works were published, except for Hoffman. Please make this consistent
in the Bibliography Zaloga is probably overlinked
- @AustralianRupert:All are rectified in someway by now. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - G'day, thanks for those changes. I have a couple more questions below. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"limited standard" --> is it possible to clarify what this means? For instance, did it mean that only certain types of formations would receive the vehicle, or it would only be used in an emergency?

done--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the encounter where the vehicle was used against German tanks, is there any information that states that after this the vehicle wasn't used in this regard, or was used differently in some way? The reason I ask is it just seems to hint at this, without explicitly saying it.

fixed--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do you know if the US leased the vehicles to the French during World War II, or after it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unknown--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your efforts. I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the following suggestions: Freikorp (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"could penetrate 3 in (76 mm) of armor at normal ranges", perhaps mention what a normal range for this weapon is. Done
Prose states "Around 500 were produced", though the infobox declares 500 even. Would it be more appropriate for the infobox to state "Approx 500", or something similar? Also the article later states "312 T30 HMCs were delivered in their original configuration, as the last 188 were converted back into M3 Half-tracks", bringing the total number to exactly 500, in comparison to the earlier statement of "around 500". Does your source explicitly state 312 and 188? Or have you extrapolated one of the figures based on the other? Done

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links (no action req'd).
- No issues with external links (no action req'd).
- No duplicate links (no action req'd)
- Image has alt text (no action req'd).
- Image is PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
- Captions look fine (no action req'd).
- Minor inconsistency in the presentation of "US" vs "U.S." I believe either is acceptable by convention (depending on ENGVAR mostly) so whichever form you prefer pls standardise throughout the article for consistency (the relevant policy is at MOS:U.S.).
  - Standardized.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know what formations the vehicles served with in Sicily, Italy and the Pacific? As I'm assuming it only served with relatively few divisions perhaps these might be listed (if available).
  - No sources that mention that.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be written better in my opinion: "After several similar occasions, the U.S. Army learned that they should not put self-propelled howitzers or mortars into direct combat with tanks..." Perhaps consider something like: "After several similar occasions, the U.S. Army learned not to employ self-propelled howitzers or mortars in direct combat with tanks..." (suggestion only)
  - @Anotherclown:Changed, but differently.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise this article looks ok to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): - can you take a look at Anotherclown's review? Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that wording is worse in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes that works, thank you. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 24 July 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.