Talk:M2 light tank/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It seems to me that the title should be lowercase (M2 light tank), since the proper name would be Light Tank M2.

   Any comment on this?

   Going to move soon.Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   The lead should make clear that it's talking about the M2A4 being equipped with the M5 gun, and should also cover the development history of the tank - remember that the introduction should summarize the entire article, and most of the article is on the development history.

   Link to medium tank in the lead

   Link to Suspension_(vehicle)#Armoured_fighting_vehicle_suspension in the specs section (assuming a better link does not exist)

   American tank, please use US measurements first.

   Convert the tons in the specs section, and specify what type of tons - but probably don't need to convert to long tons, as it's not commonly used apart from measuring ship displacement.

   Link horsepower in the template with the |lk=in parameter.

   "It had an 250 hp (190 kW) Continental W-670 9A 7 cylinder engine operated by a crew of 4" - sure the engine wasn't operated by a crew of 4

   ".30 cal" - link to caliber

   " .50 inch (12.7 mm) Browning" - this gun is always a ".50 cal", never a ".50 inch" - also link the to M2 and the .30 cal as well (and delete the later link to the M2 - and ditto to the ".50 inch" thing there)

   Instead of linking to infantry, link to Infantry Branch (United States) (and capitalize all instances)

   Ditto for the Cavalry Branch - link to United States Cavalry

   Don't forget about this one

   Link the M5 gun in the text.

   Link to rivet

   Same here

• Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I found this book, which might have some details worth incorporating. For instance, it points out that the M2A4 was a stopgap tank, which the Ordnance Dept knew.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Are there specifications for the earlier models of the tank? If so, those should be included also.

• No other specs for other models.Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The British had a habit of naming American tanks for American generals (usually of the Civil War) - did they give a name to this one?

• No. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I'd like to see a little more detail in the Employment section - for instance, can we be more specific with the "remained in service in some areas of the Pacific Theater until 1943" bit? And what happened to them thereafter?

   Also, what happened to the rest of the M2A4s? Only around 50 went to the Marines and 36 went to the UK - that leaves almost 300 tanks unaccounted for. Presumably they were used for training, but the article only mentions the earlier variants being used in that capacity.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H17816.jpg - needs a US copyright tag

   I'm kinda surprised this high res, color photo isn't being used in the article.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Finished suggestions. Cheers, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's something I found while trawling through google books that you might find interesting - this book apparently lifted directly from an earlier version of this article. The book was published in 2011, and the text in question was here at least as early as 2010, so there's no question about who copied what. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Now done.Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Now we have an issue with the material you added - it's too much of a copy of the text from Green - it needs to be rewritten so it's a paraphrase, not a copy. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Paraphrased it. I think I am done.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's still too closely-worded to the original - it looks like all you changed were a few words here and there. To avoid plagiarism, the structure of the sentences should be reworked. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Finally finished. Tomandjerry211 ^{Message for me?} 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)