Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/M22 Locust

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M22 Locust edit

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is the 'companion' as it were to the Light Tank Mk VII, the Tetrarch which I raised to FA class some time ago. The Locust was designed to replace the Tetratch, but amazingly it was even more poorly designed. Eight were used during Operation Varsity, but none really did anything. Prose will probably be the main problem here; I added some new sources yesterday, but I haven't looked over the rest for a while. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Looks quite good. One thing I've just noticed after a quick skim through, shouldn't there be a Union Jack in the Used by section of the infobox? I'll read it a bit more thoroughly in a bit. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes. Rather an odd thing to miss, but there's one there now. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. You've put a lot of good work into this article. Only suggestion I could give is that the prose seems to drag on quite a bit. It's a bit lengthy and there's some unneeded wording in it. But otherwise it is a well written article. Might make a good FA. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Prose is always a problem for me; several editors are copy-editing it at the moment, but I'll get it thoroughly copy-edited prior to an FAC attempt. Skinny87 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support This was always meant to be support, just realised it wasn't. Copied and pasted from the wrong line.... Ranger Steve (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great read. I'd never heard of this tank before now, so another success for Wikipedia (and Skinny). I made some alterations to the prose, but feel free to revert if you disapprove. Got a few queries though:

From Faults: There were also mechanical problems with the design, which was proving to be unreliable in that area I'm probably being thick, but I'm not sure what this means. Is it that the tank was unreliable in the mechanics of the design?

I've rewritten it so hopefully it says that, but feel free to rewrite if required. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, looks much better now. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Second World War: Six Locusts from the regiment, divided into two troops of three, would land with the 6th Airlanding Brigade in landing-zone P. Six or eight? It says 8 everywhere else, but here it's described as 2 groups of 3 so I didn't change it just in case. Also, what time were they relieved - am or pm?

Good points, I'll check them out. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time is am, as I'm using the 24 hour clock, although I've now added am just make sure. Still checking the numbers.Skinny87 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't read ;P It was eight Locusts in two troops of four. Corrected now. Skinny87 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it might be! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the obsolete bit, I was trying to find a way to make it sound a little less like the Airborne Forces only got them because they were obsolete (although I suppose technically that's true). I get the meaning of the sentence, but I had to re-read it originally 'cos I'd thought the war office decided that the Airborne needed an obsolete tank, rather than getting them because they were obsolete for Armoured formations.

That's what I tried to put across, and David Underdown refigured it. If it still doesn't make sense, fee lfree to rewrite it, although the two sources need to go together. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal, I just thought I'd try, but I confess I can't really see a simple way to make it clearer. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all good. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good, but I'd like to see some more coverage of it with the Egyptian army - I read about it in an article on a battle in that war that was up for A-Class a few weeks back, and it seems to have had a somewhat major role there. – Joe N 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, link me, link me! I know they were used, but can't find any reliable sources. If they exist, I need to use them! Skinny87 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this article doesn't have any references to the Locust, confirmed by the editor who got it to A-Class some time ago. Skinny87 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.