Talk:Desert Tech MDR/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work on this article over the past few years. Unfortunately, I am closing this nomination as a quick-fail, as I feel it falls well short of the sourcing requirements necessary for a Good article. Criterion 1 of the "Immediate failures" says "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." Specifically, I feel that this article does not meet [[WP:GACR|Criterion 2b}}: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines".

In total, 27 references are listed in this article.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #1 is a primary source: Desert Tech, the manufacturer of the article's subject. This reference is used 13 times.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Refs #2 and #3 are probably fine.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #4 appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref #5 is probably fine.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref #6 is probably fine.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #7 appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight (same site as ref #4).
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #8 is the manufacturer's blog.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #9 looks like a puff piece by a company selling the gun.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref #10 is probably fine.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #11 is a primary source for the part in question.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #12 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #13 is a YouTube video, which is generally considered unreliable.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref #14 is probably fine.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ref #15 is probably fine.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #16 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #17 is the manufacturer's blog.
 * Symbol question.svg Ref #18: I'm not sure about this one, as I can't tell who the study is by. Could be fine, could be bad.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #19 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #20 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #21 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #22 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #23 is from the manufacturer's website.
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Ref #24 is probably fine for what it is supporting.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #25 is from the manufacturer's website.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Ref #26 is from the manufacturer's website.
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Ref #27 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.

A few primary sources would not be a problem, but this article relies almost entirely upon them and third-party blogs or YouTube videos with no clear editorial oversight. Take a look at Reliable sources to see details of what can and can't be used for various information. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)