Talk:Winchester Model 1200/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• "The major parts of the shotgun which must be destroyed are the receiver and magazine group, the barrel assembly and bayonet assembly, the breech bolt group and the trigger guard group." - I know that the different groups have specific meaning, however, given that so many of them are not working pages, I suggest you just wikify magazine, barrel, bayonet, etc. instead of magazine group, etc.
• There are issues with the references and citation sections. There are retrieved dates missing; 2, 7 and 9, and the citation section are not in the right format. Please refer to WP:REF to see how they should be presented.

I will put this article On Hold for up to seven days. Let's try and see if we can resolve these issues.

Thanks for the speedy review of my article. I will try to fix those couple things as soon as possible, but I this week is rather busy for me because finals are right around the corner. Hopefully I can have it finished by the end of the week. I'll send you a message when I fix those things for you to review.Mzwhiz21 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, please let me know when all of the improvements have been completed. Good luck with your exams. -- S Masters (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Final summary: Thank you for all your work in making this a better article. I am confident that it now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and can be passed. Well done! -- S Masters (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)