Wikipedia:Peer review/Glock/archive1

GLOCK[edit]

Good article so far I think, many users keep on contributing to it on a constant basis. I would like to nominate if as featured article at one point, would like to request some peer reviews and advice first, thank you. Gryffindor 22:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot more sources - right now, it only has one. Also, if this was an FAC, I would oppose it until it was moved from "GLOCK" to "Glock". Just because a company likes to spell their name in all caps doesn't mean we have to cater to that here. Moving it to the proper title is an easy fix, though. The references are the most important thing. Kafziel 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead should be expanded to conform to WP:LEAD
One note is not sufficient to cover the entire article
See WP:NOT- Wikipedia is not a how-to. I suggest reworking the "Disassembly" section.
Unless knives can be expanded, I suggest merging it into the overview.
The organization is rather odd. I don't see why the myths should be presented as the second section- instead move popularity up there.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, more sources have been added, as well as the popularity part moved above the myth part. Gryffindor 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to cover as much (if not much more) the products as the company itself... The scope should be made clearer.
- What's the history of the company? What's its structure?
Difficult to see the structure of the article from the TOC
Many short paragraphs
Big table is ugly. Isn't the usual class="wikitable" appropriate?
Circeus 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]