Talk:M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Freikorp in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 07:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Offline sources accepted in good faith regarding copyright violations.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Intro: "in the period" seems redundant, and can just be removed.
Done - "It turned out to be an interim solution as the better armed M16 MGMC arrived in 1944." This seems redundant, as the previous paragraph already mentions what it was replaced with and when. Done
- Intro states the vehicle evolved from a series of "unsuccessful prototypes", but nothing is really specified later on about prototypes being unsuccessful, only that "Evaluation of ... test vehicles led to the T1E2 design being preferred." Addressed
- Specifications: Can "Mark 9 reflector sight" be wikilinked to anything relevant? The sentence is not helpful to people who know nothing about such sights, myself included. Same story with "Maxson mounting", but i've already looked for that and there doesn't seem to be any information on wikipedia about them. Done
- Development: "AA armament". Abbreviation AA is not specified prior to this - should probably be specified in the lead. Done
- "With acceptance into production as the M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage". Almost identical to the previous sentence in the last paragraph. Could probably just be replaced with "A a total of 1,103 M13's were produced..." Done
- Intro: "in the period" seems redundant, and can just be removed.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- I don't suppose you have any information on what became of the other half go the M13's that weren't converted to M16's? Or what happened to the 139 that got to see action? Where any destroyed in action? What happened to the ones that weren't destroyed?
- Got no sources that mention of this.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't suppose you have any information on what became of the other half go the M13's that weren't converted to M16's? Or what happened to the 139 that got to see action? Where any destroyed in action? What happened to the ones that weren't destroyed?
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Freikorp: Mind checking this again?Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
