Talk:M1 Garand/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:M1 Garand rifle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I was initially hoping to pas this outright, but after a thorough read through an copyedit I have relised a number of significant problems that must be addressed and several smaller problems that need looking at. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added tags where they are most needed. The article is sparse on citation in some places and these are the minimum that need to be addressed.
 * The citations in the article at the moment are a botch of different styles, many of them improperly formatted. Please see the information below for dealing with this problem. In addtion, it is a very bad idea to use "ibid" or "loc cit" in wikipedia articles. If anyone else comes in an sticks a citation in between those already existing then the citations become a hopeless muddle.
 * The very long history section should be broken up into at least "design history" and "service history" and possibly further.
 * "Officials in Army Ordnance circles demanded a fixed, non-protruding magazine for the new service rifle." - When? Without a date, this entire section is meaningless.
 * The "en bloc" clip is partially discussed three times, a problem indicative of the awkward organisation within this article. Try to streamline the information more to eliminate repetition.
 * I have copyedited the article removing the worst of the spelling mistakes, abbreviations ("WWII") and peacock terms ("free world"). However, the text is far from exemplary and requires significant attention.
 * I'm sorry, but those tags are still there and its been almost two weeks. This article is delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)