Talk:M15 half-track/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm going to make quite a lot of prose suggestions. I'll work through them by section. throughout, when mentioning the proper name of a vehicle, be consistent ie Half-Track, Half-track or Halftrack. Given the article is Half-Track, perhaps that would be best, but see my comment on the common name below. LeadY The M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage (commonly known as the M15 Half-Track)...See my suggested first two sentences below.Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) produced by the White Motor CompanyY if there was a break in production then from July 1942 to February 1944Y and was often supplemented theand was often deployed in combination with the M16 Half-Track.Y delete in missions and convoysY It evolved from the T28 project; initially as the expedient T28E1 Combination Gun Motor Carriage (CGMC). It was accepted into service in 1943, subsequently equipping many US Army units during the latter stages of World War II.Y where does "a very good infantry support weapon" come from?Y suggest The M15A1 was an improved variant with the machine guns mounted below the 37 mm gun.Y I really don't understand how the mention here of the M15 "Special" gels with the description in the body. If it wasn't based on the M15, why is it even mentioned?Y There is no context to the sentence about the "M54 mount". Which variant involved the M54 mount? The mount sentence still doesn't make any sense. I don't think it is necessary for the lead, so you could just delete it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Y Suggest using the Allied invasion of southern France as few know the operation name.Y needs a "the" in front of "Allied"Y invasion of Germany from the West is very clunky, and the W in West needs to be lower caseY DesignY wl M3 Half-track throughout, the measurements should be US consistent (if that is the approach being taken). ie feet and inches, US gallons, except where the reliable sources use metric (perhaps in the case of the bore of the main gun). I just want to point out that Jane's uses metric measurements for length, width, and height OK, normally you would expect a US vehicle to be in US measure, but just be as consistent as possible. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) convert templates should be used throughout. eg 150 miles isn't converted. worth mentioning that VVSS was used on the early US tanks as well. wl horsepower and convert What do you mean by that because you can't get a link in a convert template sorry, should be "or convert", preferably convert space before 386 suggest 6:3:1. It had a maximum road speed of 41.63 miles per hour (67.00 km/h) on road. wl Power-to-weight ratio same sentence with conversions for the armament, but mention where the 50 cals were mounted in the original design (ie above the 37 mm gun). With 6 to 12 mm of armor it weighed 9.45 tonnes. is inaccurate according to Jane's. Jane's says 12 mm front armour, no side armour. Needs to be clarified, given that you are relying on Jane's for the sentence, but it says nothing of the sort. Same thing applies to the infobox, where 15 mm is the maximum armour. Not sure where that comes from, but infoboxes should have original design info, not later stuff. Given the M54 gun mount was part of the A1 design, and design sections generally cover the design as originally built, it would be better to move the material about the M54 mount to the Development section, and ensure that it is clear that in the original design, the M42 mount involved two water-cooled 50 cals mounted above the 37 mm gun. DevelopmentY MGMC has not yet been introduced, so it should be in full at first mention. suggest The M15 design developed from the T1A2 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (MGMC) project, which was based on the M2 Half Track Car. With the addition of a 37 mm gun, this design became the T28. The T28 project was cancelled in 1942 by the Coast Artillery Board., however, some explanation of how it was that the Coast Artillery Board was responsible for anti-aircraft weaponry might be order here, as it is counter-intuitive to the casual reader. You might want to wl United States Army Coast Artillery Corps if we are essentially talking about the same thing. the latter part of the first para of this section has quite a bit about the T28E1 in it, this would be better in the following subsection. suggest A United States Army Armored Force requirement for a mobile anti-aircraft gun to support the coming North African campaign resulted in the T28 project being revived. The new vehicle used a M3 Halftrack chassis, and was designated as the T28E1 CGMC. This is the point I would break to the T28E1 subsection. T28E1Y suggest this subsection read A total of 80 T28E1s were produced in 1942, all of which had an unprotected mount for the gun combination and crew. After 80 T28E1s had been produced, the vehicle went into full production with the designation M15 CGMC. Some of the T28E1s still in service were converted back into M3A1 Halftracks. However, it would probably better to move the service history information to the later section. It is unclear if the sentences starting with In Italy, relate to the T28E1 or the M15, I am assuming the M15, so will comment on that text in the next subsection. M15, M15A1 and "M15 Special"Y suggest The M15 was equipped with the M42 armoured weapon mount, in which two water-cooled M2 Browning machine guns were mounted above the 37 mm gun. A total of 680 M15s were produced during 1943, but because the M42 mount placed considerable stress on the M3 chassis, the M54 mount was introduced, and the resulting combination with the M3A1 Halftrack chassis was designated as the M15A1 CGMC. The M54 mount reversed the positions of the machine guns and 37 mm gun, and air-cooled M2 Browning machine guns replaced the water-cooled weapons used on the M15. A total of 1,052 M15A1s were produced in 1943, with a further 600 in 1944. The unofficial name "M15 Special" relates to M15s and probably other CGMCs converted in depots in Australia to mount the Swedish-designed Bofors 40 mm gun on a halftrack chassis. This was the only successful conversion of a US halftrack to mount the Bofors gun. Service historyY suggest all the employment and battle information be moved to this section and combined into two paragraphs, as follows: suggest first para When engaging enemy aircraft, tracer ammunition from the machine guns was used to bringing the main gun onto the target. T28E1 crews claimed more than 100 aircraft kills during Operation Torch, the Battle of Kasserine Pass, and the Allied invasion of Sicily, claiming 39 aircraft at the Battle of Kasserine Pass alone. One T28E1 was captured by the Germans at Kasserine Pass and was later rebuilt as a carrier for equipment and troops to replace German vehicles that had been destroyed by Allied aircraft. second para suggest Each US Army armoured division was allocated an anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) company equipped with eight M15 CGMCs in addition to eight M16 MGMCs, which were equipped with four Browning M2 machine guns in a M45 Quadmount. At corps and army level, each AAA battalion was equipped with 32 of each vehicle. After first seeing action in the Allied invasion of Sicily, the M15 and then M15A1 served in the rest of the Italian Campaign, the Allied invasions of Normandy and southern France, and throughout the Western Front fighting, including the Battle of the Bulge. They were often used in the ground support role, as Allied air superiority meant there were few enemy aircraft to engage. They were also used in the Pacific theatre during the Philippines Campaign and the Battle of Okinawa. The "M15 Special" was used by the 209th AAA Battalion in the Philippines in 1944–45. The M15 and M15A1 also served in the ground support role during the Korean War. ProductionY suggest deleting, the production numbers would be better in the text as suggested above. Might want to add the production dates to my suggested text. VariantsY There is a lot of repetition here, I suggest deleting it and moving anything I haven't already mentioned up to the appropriate section. See alsoY, but the supply catalog description list seems overkill See also sections should not include wl to things already linked in the text. Therefore, all but List of U.S. military vehicles by model number should be removed. The latter should be linked in full so it is clear what the link goes to, per WP:EGG.Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	the article title and first couple of sentences don't really comply with WP:TITLE and WP:LEAD. suggest moving the article to M15 Halftrack, which appears to be the common name (see talk), and rendering the first sentence as follows: The M15 Halftrack or M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage was a World War II United States Army self-propelled anti-aircraft gun mounted on a halftrack chassis. It was equipped with one automatic 37-millimetre (1.5 in) gun and two water-cooled 0.5-inch (13 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in a coaxial mount. This would properly introduce the vehicle and its primary equipment in two sentences. Currently, the main armament is only mentioned indirectly.Y nothing in the lead is sufficient controversial that it would need to be cited there, per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead should be in the body of the article and cited there. We try to avoid citing in the lead, it breaks up the flow and is usually unnecessary.Y same goes for the citations in the infobox. Anything in there should be in the body.Y the initialisation "SPAAG" doesn't need to be included, as it isn't used elsewhere in the articleY when indicating multiples in the infobox, use the × (from the wikimarkup at the bottom of your edit screen) instead of x, and have a space before and afterY wheelbase doesn't appear to have a field in the infobox, if not, suggest removing it from there, it has nothing to do with height of the vehicle, and is currently confusing.Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Normally I would quickfail this nomination for having no citation on the second para of the Design section and a "citation needed" tag at the bottom of the M15A1, M15 "Special" and M34 section, but that would probably be a bit harsh for a first time GA nominee. However, this needs fixing asap. All sources of information need to be cited.Y
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm unsure about Rickard as a WP:RS. Can you just run me through why www.historyofwar.org and Rickard are considered reliable?Y Go see http://www.historyofwar.org/about.html Look chief, I've given you a lot of rope here already, in case you missed the pretty obvious signals. I'm not a patient man. I'm an old and cranky man, as it happens. I went to "go see" and I saw it, and I was distinctly unimpressed. Looked like a fanboi site to me. From what I could see, this Rickard chap appears to have a specialty in English and Welsh castles if that, maybe at post-grad level, but certainly not professorial level. And certainly not on American half-tracks of WWII. Why is he reliable for M15 half-tracks, exactly? Please restrict yourself to the criteria at WP:RS. That will help us both, given you've already chosen to try to fob me off with a website link rather than properly explain your choice of sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Okay, okay I removed Rickard from the reference list and replaced with more reliable sources. I noticed that at least one reviewer at the ACR suggested Rickard might be reliable. Removal isn't necessary, what we need is an adequate explanation as to why he and the website are reliable. We could have that discussion in a new thread on the talk page proper if you like. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC) the Note regarding the M15 Special is confusing, given what is in the text.Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	bit hard to know at present, as there is uncited materialY can you explain why Graeme's tag and comment about The T28 project ended in 1941. have been removed? If Zaloga p. 40 says April 1942 how can April 1941 be cited to the same page of Zaloga? The source surely doesn't say both? If reliable sources of similar weight vary, we compare and contrast them, not choose one and ignore the other. Sorry, my bad, later on I fixed the stuff according to the comment. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm quite surprised Jane's World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles (2002) hasn't been consulted for this article. p. 193 gives the production numbers for 42–44 for both M15 (80, 600, —) and M15A1 (—, 1052, 600), and also has a brief explanation of the development. Further, p. 206 has the stats for the M15 series as weight 9.45 tonnes, length 6.17 metres, width 2.24 metres, height 2.39 metres, front armour 12mm, no side armour, 128 HP engine and road speed of 67 km/h. These obviously vary a little from what is there, but at least the annual production numbers are useful.Y
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	need to wait until all other comments are addressed before finalising this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	just the issue on the lead about it being "very good". Deleted.Y
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems fine, just the nominator and GraemeLeggett contributing, no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	the infobox image is PDY the source link to Carlisle on the M16 image license is broken, so it is not possible to check its bonafides or copyright status. A new source link is needed, can be to anything so long as it is made clear in the licensing that the assumption is being made that the photograph was taken by an employee of the US Govt (per the license).Y (removed) File:M16-halftrack-korea.jpg is PDY the Hampton Roads image is pretty much a less clear image than the infobox one. I would drop it for that reason, but the real issue is that given that it was taken at a port and the source doesn't say what the original source was, we shouldn't be making the assumption it was taken by a US Govt employee.Y the diagram one is obviously PD, as it comes from a Govt publication.Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'll address this once we have a final license for all the images. The infobox pic is actually a M15A1 according to the image file, the caption should reflect that. Suggest "A M15A1 CGMC displayed at the Fort Lewis Military Museum, Washington"Y suggest "A M16 MGMC in action during the Korean War. The M15 operated alongside the M16 in World War II and Korea."Y I also suggest swapping the positions of the M16 image and the M15 diagram, they would then suit the adjacent textY
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing this on hold for seven days for the above points to be addressed. Quite a bit of work will be needed to bring this up to GA in that timeframe. If you need a bit more time, please ping me. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC) *Pretty sure I am done so please go over everything and give me the answer to this review Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC) *Passing, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

G'day, unless I've missed something, at the end of the first para of the T28E1 section, it says T28 CGMC, but should that say T28E1 CGMC? Also, first sentence of the M15... section, should that be M15, not M15A1? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

also no need for both isbn and oclc. Just one is needed, generally we prefer isbn if available. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

speed in the infobox needs to match text. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am certainly done now ,okay!Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)