Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/M3 Half-track/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

M3 Half-track edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to understand what issues from the last failed GA still exist, and if any more have come up.

Thanks, WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ykraps (more to come)

  • I'm not clear as to what a "derivative variant" is. These words have similar meanings so to see them together looks odd. Perhaps it is meant to say "derivatives and their variants"? I expect that to those in the know, it's all pretty obvious but I think the average reader is going to be very confused so more explanation is needed. Is a derivative the model (so for example, the M3 is derived from the M2) and a variant is the same model with some sort of modification, (so an M3 GMC is an M3 that has been modified to take a 75mm gun)? Have I got that right?--Ykraps (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the derivatives part, and found a source for production numbers that was removed at some point, re-added. Changed the production numbers to reflect the source. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the lead it says, "...the slightly longer M3 was extensively produced, with about 15,000 units and more than 50,000 derivative variants manufactured." Does this mean that each M3 was modified multiple times?--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to get my head around how there can be more variants than there were M3s. That seems nonsensical to me because I would've thought that for each a variant an M3 must've been produced. The only way there could be fewer M3s is if a single M3 was varied several times. Or are these variants not counted as M3s because they are called M4s or M5s etc? If it's the latter, I'm wondering whether they ought to be included because this article should focus on M3s. If I can get a handle on what's going on, I might be able to suggest a way to make it clearer.--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are getting the Idea that they are produced as M3s and then converted to the variants. This is not correct, the vehicles are simply built from scratch into their varied form. For instance, The M3 GMC is a variant, but they didn't build an M3 and then cut out parts to fit the gun, they just built it that way from the start.
  • That was my initial thought but I wondered why it didn't say, "65,000 units were produced of which 50,000 were variants" which I think, would've been clearer. However, I see that is more or less what it says in the production section so it is clarified later on.--Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Specifications section there is a sudden switch to metric when it says, "It also had 6–12 mm of armor". Any reason for this?--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing happens on the pages of other vehicles, such as the M5 Half-track. According to the Rolled homogeneous armour page, armor was originally measured in equivalent mm of RHA(and penetration in the same way), so I suppose it just became the norm. I swapped the order in the infobox from in(mm) to mm(in) for consistency though. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds perfectly reasonable. If the armo(u)r was manufactured to a metric size then the metric measurement should come first.
  • In the lead, "...by a large number of manufacturers including International Harvester, and were designed for a large variety of uses, such as a self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon and..." The use of the word large twice in such a short space seems clumsy. Can this be rephrased?--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some repetitive phrasing in the specification section too with the use of 'it had' and 'it also had' used multiple times. Instead of "With a fuel capacity of 60 US gallons (230 l), it had a range of 150 miles (240 km), and was powered by a 128 hp (95 kW)[2] White 160AX, 386 in3 (6,330 cc),[3] 6-cylinder gasoline engine with a compression ratio of 6:3:1. The power-to-weight ratio was 15.8 hp/ton. It also had 6–12 mm of armor.[1] It had a crew of one (driver) and capacity for a squad of 12." What about saying,
"With a fuel capacity of 60 US gallons (230 l), the M3 was capable of carrying 12 troops and its driver 150 miles (240 km) on a single tank, and the 128 hp (95 kW)[2] White 160AX, 386 in3 (6,330 cc),[3] 6-cylinder gasoline engine with a compression ratio of 6:3:1, gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 15.8 hp/ton. The armor was 6–12 mm thick"? (Just a suggestion)--Ykraps (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded, probably still can be improved but can't think of a better wording for the moment. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The in3 I see already has it written in superscript, is there something I'm not seeing? WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I don't know what I was looking at.--Ykraps (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a three-line paragraph in the design section that has more repetitive prose, "Racks under the seats ...additional racks behind the seat .... A small rack for mines ...Luggage racks were often added ...very late vehicles had rear-mounted racks ..." As another suggestion, what about...
Rifles were held in brackets behind the seats while the ammunition and rations were generally stored underneath. Most units however found the need to carry additional rations on the outside of the vehicle with rucksacks and other equipment, and later vehicles allowed for this with a purpose-built rack mounted at the rear. Mines were transported on the side of the vehicle in a receptacle just above the tracks. Or something similar.--Ykraps (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the development section:"The prototype was designated T7 and had the same chassis and engine as the M3 but..." Are we talking about the M3 Scout Car or the M3 Halftrack? If the former, you could just say, The prototype, designated T7, retained the chassis and engine but...--Ykraps (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but had a larger front wheel and a shorter front" - Just the one wheel?--Ykraps (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another major issue with the M3 was that its rear idler often broke after continued use. Before the Ordnance Department approved an official fix, commanders in North Africa bought new rear idlers that would not break after continued use" - More clumsy phrasing. Why not just say ...bought new idlers that were more durable", to avoid repetition?--Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know from where these new idlers were sourced?--Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could not find any sources for the replacement of idlers. BTW, I am the original GA nominator. --Randomness74 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the citation, they did not buy new idlers, but rigged up a prototype solution using parts they spent their own money on, but then had ordnance purchase the parts for the rest of the north africa vehicles. Quote "...came up with a scheme to replace the fixed idler with an eyebolt and nut, and a coil spring from a Caterpillar tractor. Colonel Sidney R. Hinds personally paid for the items and...quickly approved it and had ordnance buy the modification parts and install the device on all the half tracks slated for North Africa". Given this, I redid the sentence a bit.WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have rewritten that section reflect what the source says, so that's good. Previously, it sounded like they popped to a street market in Marrakesh, and picked up a brand new one.--Ykraps (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done here. You can either close this or leave it open to see if anyone else has any suggestions. You must close it before nominating for GA though. All the best, --Ykraps (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I'll leave it open till tomorrow or the day after, then close it. WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/M3_Half-track/archive1&oldid=890033437"