Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/M9 half-track/1

M9 half-track edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of conflicts are cited but not supported by sources. Some users, such as the Philippines, are also unsourced.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to remove the uncited conflicts and users than demote the article, which otherwise seems GA material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you remove all the unsourced foreign users and wars, you do not have a complete overview of the subject.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I favor delist. This article is rather short and doesn't include a lot of the information that could have been drawn from available sources. The vehicle has apparently been in use since the 1940s, but no specific dates are mentioned after the 1940s. Only a few of the wars mentioned in the opening are referred to anywhere within the article itself. How widespread is its use today? This falls short of what we expect of a good article.Martinthewriter (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: since you are not involved on this discussion but did review Talk:M3 half-track/GA3, could you close this GAR with delist. I think there is a consensus.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, given that it has been open since April and there are still issues with "cn" tags and coverage (GA criteria 2 and 3), I feel it does make sense to close this as demoted. If the coverage could be expanded to discuss its service history in more detail, and the cn tags addressed, there should be no real issues with promotion back to GA, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]