The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M3 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk)

M3 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems good enough for the rating. It has gone through a GA review , a major rewrite and is currently pending at DYK. It is a a (relatively) well-known US half-track that was designed in the summer of 1941 as an interim design for a tank destroyer. It was used in the defense of the Philippines and North Africa. Production was halted in 1943 due to release of better TDs, like the M10 GMC. I hope this passes. Thanks for you comments before hand,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name in the infobox is different from the article title;
  • why the scare quotes here (in the lead): in "tank destroyer battalions" - these probably aren't necessary;
  • inconsistent caps: "M3 Half-track" v. "M3A1 half-tracks";
  • "pilot vehicles" --> "prototypes";
  • I suggest moving Production out of the "American use" section;
  • I suggest creating an "Operational service" section, with "US" and "Allied" subsections;
  • per the MOS, do not start sentences with numerals;
  • caption: "A picture of the M3 Gun Motor Carriage" --> this sounds more like alt text, than a caption. I suggest tweaking.
    • All done. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I made a few more tweaks. These are my edits: [1]. Please check that you are happy with these changes. I've added my support now as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSupport
  • Tool checks all ok (alt text, external links, dabs, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrase [2])
  • Does File:The British Army in Italy 1945 NA22387.jpg need a PD-US tag?
  • The first two sentences of the lead seem a bit repetitive. For instance is there a need to repeat "M1897A4 gun on the M3 chassis"? Perhaps reword the first sentence? Done
  • These two sentences in the lead should probably be merged: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942. It served with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role." For instance it might work better like this: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942 with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role." Done
  • In the lead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a few others..." suggest instead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a several other engagements..." Done
  • Also in the lead "The M3 GMC also served in the Pacific theater, starting with the Battle of Saipan..." perhaps mention it served with the US Marines in this theatre (otherwise the implication might seem to be US Army by omission). Done
  • Wikilink self propelled artillery Done
  • "The Japanese captured a few vehicles and used them in the defense of the Philippines." Perhaps add a year(s) for context? Done
  • "By 1942, M3 GMCs became part of tank destroyer battalions, which...." This paragraph is (initially) referring to the North African campaign; however, it doesn't state this and I think this would not be clear to some readers. Perhaps mention this? Done
  • Is there an article for the M10 GMC? If so it should be wikilinked, if not probably should redlink it as I imagine it would be notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of my points have been addressed so I've added my support. The only outstanding concern I have is the tagging for File:The British Army in Italy 1945 NA22387.jpg. @Nikkimaria: or @AustralianRupert: - if either of you have the time would it be possible to get your opinion/s as to whether this file needs some sort of PD-US tag? I've no clue about such issues. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For completeness yes, but it should be simple (((PD-1996))) given the expiration of Crown copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, agreed. I've added this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Rupert.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

This article is another one that has been around for too long, so I've taken a look even though its a little outside of my comfort zone. I tend to do 20th century bios/units. Some thoughts/issues as follows:

• IMHO, the article doesn't flow well in its present form. Is it typical for equipment articles to start with a specifications section? I feel that this more logically should follow the development section and this would provide better context overall for the subject of the article. It would mean shifting some of the wikilinks so they are on the first usage of the linked terms. Also suggest moving the production section to precede the service history. The sentence in the service history relating to how many were converted to M3A1s half-tracks probably is better placed in the production section as well.

• For all I've seen, I think it's OK to start with the specs, as a few other articles with the same layout have passed MILHIST A-class. The second part I will do shortly.

• Lead: "A total of 1,361 were converted back into M3A1 half-tracks." Maybe add in the total number built here? "Of the XXXX that were built, a total of 1,361 were blah blah..."
  • Finished.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "The 36 T12s were improved.": This short sentence is really jarring, it needs to be integrated into the following sentence somehow. Maybe "The 36 T12s were improved by adding a mount that raised the gun shield..." Try and avoid repeating the word "addition" in the same sentence.

• Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The new design was designated as the M3A1 Gun Motor Carriage": shouldn't GMC be used here since you have already used it an abbreviated form elsewhere?

• That's the official name used by the Army when it started production.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...while another 50 were quickly transported and used in the Philippines.": suggest rephrasing to "...while another 50 were built and transported to the Philippines." Dont think there is the need for the used as from the following sentences, it is clear that it was.
• "The T12/M3 GMC first served": suggest rephrasing to "The T12/M3 GMC first saw action with the U.S. Army in the Philippines..."
• "Three battalions of the Provisional Field Artillery Brigade operated T12s.": suggest expanding this sentence by tacking on: "...against the Japanese when they invaded the Philippines."
• "which consisted of 36 M3s and four 37 mm M6 GMCs." Not clear to me that this is per tank destroyer battalion or the total operating in North Africa.
• "ineffective": suggest replacing with "inadequate for this task" since you use the similar word "effective" earlier in the same sentence.
• "The M3 remained in service with the U.S. Marines": suggest rephrasing to "The M3 also served with the U.S. Marines in the Pacific Theatre of Operations and was first blah blah..."
• wikilink U.S. Marines
• "The M3 GMC was not supplied to many countries through the Lend-Lease program.": doesn't read well. Suggest rephrasing to something like "The M3 GMC saw limited service with other countries as it was not widely supplied through the Lend-Lease program."

That's my initial comments, I'll check back in a couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomandjerry211, still waiting for your response here. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: In the interests of trying to finalise this review which is close to four months old, I have edited the article to try to rectify these issues. These are my edits: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Good call, Tomandjerry seems to have slowed up on his editing as of late. Your changes look good so have added my support. It will be good to have this one wrapped up after so long. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.