Talk:Saiga semi-automatic rifle/GA2

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Prose issues
 * The paragraphs in the "History" section are too short and choppy. I would combine the first two and the last two paragraphs in that section into a set of two fuller paragraphs, which will make the prose look more professional to readers.
 * Please go over the prose again in the article as there are still quite a bit of areas that are very wordy and lead readers astray in the aspects.
 * The "Sporter rifle definition" subsection is not written very well at all. The first paragraph goes on for too long, which makes readers lost interest in what they're reading. You also seem to go back and forth describing that an assault rifle does and what a sporter rifle does instead of sticking with what makes a rifle a sporter and not an assault rifle. As I noted above, the overall wordiness does not help any.


 * Coverage issues
 * The article could be expanded a bit more after doing a quick Google search. this may help better in the description of the Saiga as well as this instruction manual. I don't know if this is reliable enough of a source, but it may provide you with more information about the conversion of a Saiga. This may also be of interest. Also keep in mind Izhmash's offical site, which provides official descriptions of the Saiga (though their manual is also OK to use) is here. Finally, Google Books comes back with some other good print sources that go over the Saiga which may be of a good help (and don't forget Google Scholar as well).

This is currently in the article what I noticed.
 * Verifiability issues
 * The first and fourth paragraphs in the "History" section are comletely unsourced. You will need to verify that information.
 * In the "Design and Operation" section, Some shooters believe the rifle is more reliable than other semiautomatic rifles because of this. → I doubt this is in the rifle's manual; this claim needs to be backed by a reliable source or else removed.


 * Stability issues
 * The merger proposal to move the "Sporter rifle definition" into the sporterising article has not been addressed or completed (with a merge or not merging).

Failed – I'm sorry, but despite the improvements from the first GAN several days ago, this article still has quite a ways before it can reach GA. I noticed the peer review in the article didn't do terribly much to suggest further improvements to the article or to indicate whichever shortcomings there were, and that's not your fault. Here are my suggestions as to what you can do to help get the article up to GA standards:
 * Conclusions


 * Make the improvements that I suggested above.
 * Try and get another peer review in there, in which hopefully somebody will be more thorough and complete and will be able to offer suggestions that I didn't cover.
 * Nominate the article for B-Class assessment for WP:MILHIST and WP:FIREARMS. Ideally, an article should at least be checked that it makes B-Class before nominating for GA.

Hopefully this helps you out a bit more. –MuZemike 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)