Talk:FN P90/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I have listed the biggest problems and will run through any outstanding issues after they are dealt with. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There is a problem with your paragraph structure. The article has a large number of very short, stubby paragraphs, that need to be expanded or merged - they look untidy and under developed. Since many of the smaller paragraphs are on related themes, consider merging the related subjects together or attaching them to larger paragraphs.
 * "Meanwhile, FN revised the 5.7x28mm ammunition." - meanwhile is unneccesary and can be removed.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a number of areas that need references. I have added tags where they are required.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Revised 12/23/09
Following your input I made corrections to the article layout and added several citations where your tags were placed. ROG5728 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work, I read a bit more and added a comment above. I will finish the read through as soon as I can.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, there is one prose issue above, and when that is addressed I will pass the article. For future expansion, I recommend 1) incorporating the external links into the references where possible and where not eliminating all but the official pages 2) providing some reviews of what the gun was like to use from trade magazines and 3) devising some form of table to tidy the section of forces that use the weapon. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised the article again to fix the prose issue. The full sentence now reads: "Following the P90's introduction, FN revised the 5.7x28mm ammunition." ROG5728 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will pass then, Merry Christmas.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Thanks. ROG5728 (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)