Talk:M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • In the lead, first mention what is the purpose of the developing the vehicle, then its production history and then comes the specifications. Please reconstruct the lead to maintain this order. Done
  • Also try to cut short the lead to some extent wherever possible, because the article is not lengthy one. For example, "After a series of tests at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the prototypes were approved" from this sentence "at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds" may be dropped. Please see similar instances Done
• Section 1;
  • M32E4 did not enter production; reason?
    • I could give a reasonable guess, but no sources to back it up.--Randomness74 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Many M32s were converted into M34 Prime Movers; reason?
    • Ditto as above.--Randomness74 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Section 2;
  • from December 1943 and to December 1944; per MOS:DATERANGE
• Section 3; all good
• All the information presented in infobox, must be mentioned in the prose. The entire specificatios—Weight, Length, Width, Height, Crew, Armor, Main armament, Secondary armament, Engine, Payload capacity, Transmission, Suspension, Fuel capacity, Operational range, Speed etc. and needs to be cited Done.
• 0% confidence, well done.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)