Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M1 Garand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] M1 Garand

Last time this was up for FA status it failed, but I think a good amount of work has been done into cleaning up and referencing the page. There are abundant sources, good pictures, and quality, well-written information. Plus, it is a very important rifle (and not just for gun buffs). I guess that's it. Deleuze 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Image:Dodgarand2.jpg has no fair use rationale, and I'm not convinced that it qualifies for fair use.
  • You've got {{note}} templates used inside ref tags, which causes dead backlinks. I'm not sure what is being attempted with this.Fixed this one myself. Pagrashtak 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead sentence:The M1 Garand (more formally the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1) was the first semi-automatic rifle in the world to be generally issued to infantry. - shouldn't you say "The United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, commonly known as the M1 Garand, ..." or something similar? The phrase "in the world" is not needed.
  • Insufficient references - for example, the entire History section contains only one inline citation. The Accessories section has none.
  • Prose needs some work. Examples: At the time, it was believed that a detachable magazine on a general-issue service rifle would be easily lost by U.S. soldiers (a criticism made of British soldiers and the Lee-Enfield 50 years previously), would render the weapon too susceptible to clogging from dirt and debris (a belief that proved unfounded with the adoption of the M1 Carbine), and that a protruding magazine would complicate existing manual-of-arms drills. - long and awkward. The M1 was developed by Springfield Armory firearms designer John Garand. The prototypes were refined during the 1920s and 1930s. - Does not flow well. As stated earlier, the M1 Garand was the direct predecessor of the M14 rifle that replaced it. - contains redundant text, and the phrase "As stated earlier" should be avoided.

Pagrashtak 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel the article would benefit from more background. The introductory remark about being the "first general issue self-loading rifle" may be confusing as the article doesn't explain why the qualifier "general issue" is needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article lacks a separate "criticism" paragraph about the disadvantages of the M1 rifle. Mieciu K 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  Why is that necessary? Disadvantages compared to what? A criticism header would probably be fairly disjointed, as this was a service rifle for just under thirty years. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a and 1c. Here are random problems at the top, which indicate that the whole text needs sifting and weeding, preferably by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with it. Particular problems are redundancies, false contrasts and undesirable repetitions.
  • "It officially replaced the Springfield M1903 rifle as the standard service rifle of the United States military in 1936, and was in turn replaced by the M14 (which was derived from the M1) in 1957." As soon as you say "officially", I start to want a reference.
  • "The majority of M1 rifles"—Do you mean "Most"?
  • "It is still used by various drill teams"—Spot the redundant word.
  • "The word "Garand" is pronounced variably as [gəˈrand] or [ˈgærənd], although descendants (and close friend Julian Hatcher) of the rifle's designer, John Garand, generally agree it should be the latter." False contrast: replace the comma + "although" with a semicolon. We have "though" and "although" in the lead. The other one is a false contrast too, strictly speaking. And I see "although" two lines later, where it's not a false contrast, but is starting to be repetitive.
  • "Springfield Armory produced modest quantities of the M1 Garand in the late 1930s and in ever-increasing numbers from 1940 to late 1945"—You're the expert, so please provide verification via a reference. The status of the article then increases.
  • "as well as"—this is an amplified version of "and". Is it necessary?
  • "the Department of Defense determined a need for additional production of the Garand, and two new contracts were awarded." Do you have access to the archival papers, reports, decisions? This type of assertion is under-referenced throughout. Tony 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)