Talk:C14 Timberwolf/GA2

GA Review

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

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.