Come on Sooty, get in there and put it right! That's how Wiki works. In the meantime, what's the most glaring error?
Well have you "corrected" it yet? Shame on you if you do not.
Yes, I know it's easy to correct Wikipedia, if you have the inclination. The point I was trying to make is that all info obtained from Wiki has to be treated as suspect unless it can be confirmed from other sources.
Since you ask, and at great risk of accusations of thread drift, my comments on the Wiki article are -
On the marine side, there is no mention of the TM2 variant of the engine, or of many of the navies (Iran, Libya, Malaysia) who used it.
There is no mention at all of the many industrial (electrical generation) units installed in 17.5MW, 20MW and massive multi-engined 70MW sets at various power stations in UK and overseas.
On the aero side, the differences between the 100 and 200 series seems to be under-stated, and the differences between 200 and 300 series over-stated. The 200 was significantly bigger than the 100 in all directions, and the B2 was a very different airframe to accommodate it. The 300 is only larger than the 200 in terms of length at the intake end, and this is accommodated with a shorter adaptor between engine and airframe. The remainder of the 300 dimensions (bulkheads, trunnions, etc) are the same as the 200.
Sooty