Jump to content

Talk:C14 Timberwolf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:C14 Timberwolf rifle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    • OK
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • OK
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • not applicable.
    • further to above the acronyms such as MRSWS and PGW need explanation when first used. The grammar is poor - the article is not reasonably well written. It does not really follow WP:MOS. statements such as "Below is some more in depth information on the MRSWS." are not encyclopaediac. I am quickfailing this article. Please bring back when expanded, rewritten and properly cited. At present this is merely start class. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GA reassessment

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:C14 Timberwolf/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Right, let's start at the top. The lead is fragmentary and needs to be spliced into a couple of small paragraphs, not several sentences on their own
    It also reads like a sales brochure and needs to be toned down and made to sound more professional
    The small sections on each part of the weapon are poorly written and lack punctuation - in fact, so does most of the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Is this really all that is available for this weapon? I realize that it is new, but surely more can be found on it? Some of the sections are wafer-thin
    Numerous areas are uncited, and all of the sections on each part of the weapon can be coalesced into a single section
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Seems to lack extensive coverage and is practically a coatrack of an article without more information. It is at least focused/
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There must be images of the weapon available - from official Canadian armed forces websites and the like.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

No real effort seems to have been made to improve this article since its last review in May. Large sections are uncited, gramar is terrible, as is punctuation, and there is little to no detail in numerous sections. Images, although not required, would also be useful and surely easy to acquire. Thus, I am quickfailing the article.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C14 Timberwolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C14 Timberwolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]