Talk:T20 Medium Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force
Related task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

Here is the M4-page discussion that led to the submission's relocation here.Wikist 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Why wasn't" etc can be acceptable as a section name aside form capitalisation issues. can this not be rewritten? GraemeLeggett 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It is POV - both the title and the content - and begs questions that are not addressed. DMorpheus 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the submission is a reasonable editorial for somewhere, the more fundamental problem is that many people tend to turn this M4 article into an M27 article, or M26 article, or T-34 article, or Tiger article. I moved this M27-design-history submission to the T20 article where it is more logical and more needed. If there is consensus for this location, discussion about factual errors and POV can continue there. Thank you.Wikist 06:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Chamberlain can take a side in his book but Wiki editors should write "The Army decided not to replace" (not "The Army failed to") and write what happed (not what "should have" and not hypothetically what "would have" happened if the Army had done the "right" thing). See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you.Wikist 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/2/0/Talk%7ET20_Medium_Tank_f7e3.html"

Categories: Stub-Class military technology and engineering articles | Military technology and engineering task force articles | Stub-Class weaponry articles | Weaponry task force articles | Stub-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | Stub-Class World War II articles | World War II task force articles | Stub-Class military history articles

Talk:T20 Medium Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search