Talk:M577 command post carrier

Military history: Land vehicles / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Feed back on initial review

Upon creating this new page, my article was tagged by the reviewer Joseywales1961 with the template 'refimprove' stating that "This article needs additional citations for verification".

I have cited over FORTY sources for this article, including numerous books and importantly, the relevant official U.S. Army technical manuals to prepare this article. As this article is supplementary to the page on the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (upon which this vehicle is based), I have also included inline comments indicating where appropriate content has been reused.

I'm sorry, but IMO that is more than just being pedantic, it is RIDICULOUS, and as such, I have deleted the tag. Blammy1 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page was tagged such because whole sections such as Background, Design, Electrical System, Interior and more did not have any citations on publication to new pages feed (and still don't). Hardly ridiculous or pedantic. Have a good evening. JW 1961 Talk 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you read/understood the article properly you would see that these were sub-sections and the tags were defined at paragraph or parent section, or inline comments for reuse dcontent, or as metadata against the images which I created and uploaded. Anyway, I have now added further citations - including MORE sources - so have a lovely pedantic evening counting them all. Blammy1 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JW 1961 Talk 08:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blammy1: I'm going to preemptively do a reassessment of the article, but it is preferable if there is a visible reference footnote at the end of each paragraph just so that people don't get confused and retag it for citation issues. Could use a grammar overhaul by a copyediting group such as the Guild of Copy Editors, but otherwise it's pretty good. Shotgunscoop (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shotgunscoop: Thank you for your positive feedback. Please note that I have already added further citations, including to those paragraphs that didn't have any, and I am currently editing a new release (in my sandbox) with some additional content, and will add further citations where needed. Blammy1 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]