Wikipedia:Peer review/M5 Half-track/archive1

M5 Half-track

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm going to put it up for GAN soon. I need to know a few more things to improve upon.

Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day Tom, good work so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1942, the U.S. faced a demand for a greater supply of M3 half tracks to the Allies..." why was this? It might help to provide a little more context here; Done
• " face-hardened armor" --> is there a link that you could provide for this to help the reader understand? Done
• "2,026 were produced" (and similar short sentences): per the MOS, sentences shouldn't start with numerals Done
• the service history section should be expanded to discuss the vehicle's service more fully. For instance Korea, the Arab-Israeli War and the Suez Crisis are mentioned in the infobox but not really discussed in any detail Done
• should the specifications be covered in the article body? Doing...

Comments from Freikorp

• Firstly I agree with all of AustralianRupert's points.
• Service history: "1941–1960?" Can you specify in the prose at all about the decline in service history? Where does the year 1960 come from and why is it questioned? Same issue with the production date "1943–1945?" Anything in the prose would be helpful, even if you had a very vague reference saying when production/service began to wind down. Similarly there's nothing in the prose about the overall number built, though this appears in the infobox. Done
• Can "homogeneous armour" be linked to Rolled homogeneous armour? Done
• Abbreviation 'IH' is never clarified (obvious I know but still needs to be specified after the first unabbreviated mention). Incidentally you should probably abbreviate the term in the sentence "M3E2/M5 – An International Harvester half-track", as it has been abbreviated prior to this. Done
• "Korean War" could use a wikilink in the prose Done

Well done on another great military article. P.S I have a peer review here if you have the time, but no pressure. Freikorp (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)