Talk:Winchester Model 1897/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

The references are not complete. Page numbers have to be clear. Please see WP:REF.
Captions which are sentences require a period at the end, see WP:CAPTION.
The Bibliography section requires correct formatting.
The Global Security external link is not specific to the subject and should be removed.
Avoid words like "Picture of" and "Image" in the picture captions as they are stating the obvious.
"The 1897 was in production from 1897 until 1957, the year in which production ceased." The 1897 part can be confusing and the year in which production ceased is stating the obvious. I suggest recasting it as "The Winchester Model 1897 was in production from 1897 until 1957."
The list in the improvements section are both bullet points as well as numbers. Use one or the other, not both. Numbering can be achieved by using "#".
"The Chinese company Norinco has made an effort to reproduce this firearm. The Norinco 97 is an almost exact copy of the Winchester 1897. The grades of Trench and Riot were reproduced by Norinco." - A citation is needed for this.
The article contains several tags - unreliable source? - articles with tags cannot pass GA (under Quick Fail). It needs to be resolved or the sentences removed.
The "See also" in the military use section should be moved to the end in its own section, see WP:SEEALSO.
The prose in the German response section needs to be reworded so that it become encyclopedic.

Summary: Overall, this article still needs a bit of work in order to raise it to GA standards. In particular, there are issues with the referencing. I am unable to check the validity of statements due to this. Specific page numbers from the references must be presented. There are additional issues outlined above. I will put this article On Hold for up to seven days for all these issues to be resoled.

Peer Review[edit]

I know you have had many reviews already, but none were listed from class. I thought the article was very informative considering I know nothing about guns of any kind. You clearly did your research and have a good grasp of the material. I will say that sometimes you state facts or figures and do not cite them. Maybe this is because you might consider them to be common knowledge, but I felt like they should have been cited. You also mentioned barrel length and guage of the shotgun. These are popular terms, but what is the benefit of having a gun with a longer/shorter barrel? It may be good to add a sentence or two for the readers, like me, who do not know these things. Also you mentioned a man named Robert Lansing you can link his name because I believe that article is about the same man you mention. Other than a couple citations and additional information the article is good. The guys above gave you a lot to work with and I know if you work on making just a couple changes it will drastically improve and article that is already good. I know you can make it great. Trod17 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trod is correct. When you include "facts and figures" that you think are common knowledge, they should still be cited to a reliable source. If you explain why the short/long barrels are good in different circumstances, this should also be cited to a reliable source. Keep working on it. Trod, you might give them an assist on the editing-guys, you can ask him for an assist on the editing, also. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final summary[edit]

Thank you for all the hard work in making this a better article. It has changed considerably since the review started and I am pleased that all issues have now been resolved. I am confident that it now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. Well done! - S Masters (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brush Gun[edit]

Didn't the brush gun have a shorter stock rather than a shorter magazine as the article states or am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.77 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]