Talk:CQC-6/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next couple days. In the meantime, I will be performing noncontroversial copyedits and other cleanup fixes. Then I will return with my review. I will not fail it if you cannot complete the review in one week; however, I do expect to see work on it or a note explaining why you cannot. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should be available. Let me know whatever you need.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall, this article is decent. It has some issues that need fixing, mainly with regards to referencing.


 * Lead
 * Design date (in the infobox) is unsourced and does not appear in the article body.
 * fixed!


 * Number of knives built (also in the infobox) is unsourced.
 * removed.


 * Quotation marks are not needed around the image caption.
 * fixed!


 * Specifications
 * Looks good here. (I will assume that the offline sources provided support the claims in the article.)


 * History
 * Looks pretty good.


 * Variants
 * A few early models featured a titanium backspacer, replaced in later years by a backspacer made of G10 fiberglass. Some early CQC-6's featured cutouts in the micarta handle slabs for a small pair of tweezers as found on the Swiss Army Knife. Unreferenced.
 * fixed, feel free to delete second ref if not needed. Wasn't trying to be cheeky, just felt an online source would add to credibility.
 * It's perfectly fine! More sources is usually better, as long as you don't do something like: "The CQC-6 has a blade[1][3][7][11][12][13][14]. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fifth and sixth paragraphs are completely unreferenced.
 * fixed


 * CQC-7
 * In the image caption, please specify which knife is which.
 * fixed


 * References
 * Refs #5 and #27: "pp" stands for "pages". When citing only one page, use "p".
 * fixed


 * External links
 * Looks good.
 * Thanks for taking the time to look, I'll put some more work in on it this afternoon.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: