Talk:T48 Gun Motor Carriage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made the last changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "produced by Diamond T " - this should probably be "produced by the Diamond T company", otherwise it's a bit unclear what the entity/person is.
• "It was a 57 mm gun M1 (US production of a British design) mounted" - there's a word or two missing here.
• "It was built when there was a need for a light, mobile self-propelled gun" - the main text doesn't actually say this.
• "and the Western Allied invasion of Germany. . " - I don't think "Western" is capitalised right here, and there's a spare full-stop.
• "The Soviets called it the SU-57 " - missing a full stop
• "vertical volute " - worth checking the capitalisation (the main text is different from the infobox)
• "The T48 originated from the M3 Gun Motor Carriage" - can you originate from something?
• Is nb1 in the best place? I was thinking it should be after the preceeding sentence.

• All are addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No they're not... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• All are finally addressed.

• "Western" isn't. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "The original travel lock for the recoil mechanism" - is there anyway to explain (or footnote) what this is for non-technical readers?

• No better way to explain.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• What does it mean though? What is a travel lock, for example? And why did the recoil mechanism need one? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I just found it on "Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked vehicles" on page 206. I'm not sure on what it means.

• Have you considered asking the MilHist folks? If neither us two understand what it means, I'm not sure it's worded right in the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood. The deformation of the hood was caused by the muzzle velocity of the 57 mm gun." - similarly, I couldn't quite understand what this meant.
• Addressed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood. The deformation of the hood was caused by the muzzle velocity of the 57 mm gun." - nothing's changed here.

• Addressed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why they were concerned about deforming the hood (and a little vague about what it actually means). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "adopting the designation SU-57. " - I don't think SU-57 needs to be bolded and italics, as it is already bolded in the lead.

• Done--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is still bolded and in italics. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Finally fixed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• "It served through Operation Dragoon" - I'd advise against using the pronoun here, as there have been a lot of other nouns in the previous paragraph. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, the pronoun is still there. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The prounoun is still there... Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• All of these are addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Not a GA requirement, but the imperial dimensions (e.g. " 21 ft long, 7 ft 1 in wide, 7 ft high") could do with metric equivalents under the MOS (you can do this using the "convert" template for example).
• Done.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:MOSFLAG is against the flag icons being added to the Operators List. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• No. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Broadly stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• There seem to be two photographs of the same T48 in a Polish Museum, both from pretty much identical angles. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Adressed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully you don't mind me dropping in a third-party observation, but there's a bit of a confusing aspect in the operational history. The article says (without going into detail) that T48s were used in "Operation Overlord, the invasion of southern France, the Battle of the Bulge and the Western Allied invasion of Germany". But the British T48s were all converted into M3 carriers, as were the American ones. The American ones were converted at Chester Tank Depot, in Pennsylvania, strongly suggesting they never left the US in T48 form; the article implies, but does not state explicitly, that the British ones were also done very promptly. This strongly suggests that the "T48" never saw service in the Anglo-American campaigns; some M3s which had once been T48s did, but that's not the same thing, and we should probably be quite careful with what the article claims. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew! Tom, can you assist? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've tidied the lead to be a bit clearer following these changes. There's one oddity remaining, with 60 British vehicles in the lead and either 30 or 31 in the body of the article. Total numbers are given as 962, of which 281 American = 681 remaining. This would fit with 650 to the Soviets and 31 to the British, suggesting the "60" in the lead is an error. (There is also a small discrepancy with Soviet numbers - 650 in the body and 652 in the lead) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)