# Talk:M5 half-track

I thought that a US designed and built vehicle should have US numbers as base. I used "TM-9-2800-1 Standard Military Motor Vehicles". 1 Sep 1943. for dimensions. All TMs here (most, actually) use inches, not feet/inches. I have been told that Europeans understand meters to two places, that’s what I have been using. 
"TM-9-705 Scout Car M3A1". 26 Oct 1942., "TM-9-707 Basic Half Tracked Vehicles (IHC)". 21 May 1943. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help), and "TM-9-7010 Basic Half Tracked Vehicles (White, Autocar, Diamond T)". 23 Feb 1944. may be interesting. TM-9-2800(43) has 1⁄2 tracks on pages 24-35 and 48-57. I did not use "TM-9-2800-1 Military Vehicles". 27 Oct 1947., (43) has more info, and is closer to build time. Doyle, David (2003). Standard catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles. Kraus Publications. ISBN 0-87349-508-X. is updated version of Berndt.
I have been doing infoboxes like this, slightly different form. Please feel free to revert. Sammy D III (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all Europeans follow metres, and those that don't work better in feet and inches. In fact as an experiment, I'd like to see someone mentally estimate something like 250 inches without converting it to feet first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I used official document and measurements. We are doing this at the same time, stepping on each others toes. I just did M17. I'm done, enjoy. Sammy D III (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try some things as feet/inches, a couple of TMs use it. Maybe Tomandjerry has a preference. Sammy D III (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:M5 Half-track/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll start this in a day or two

I've tweaked a few sentences for readability, added some links.  Please review.  auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: