Wikipedia:Peer review/Glock/archive3

Glock

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I am looking to get this article to GA status. Any input would be appreciated.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gtstricky, here are some suggestions that I think will improve the article to meet GA requirements: I hope this helps. Once you have expanded the article, expand the lead per WP:LEAD to match. If you want me to look at the article again at some stage, just leave me a note on my talk page. Regards, Somno (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from Somno
 * History:
 * Much more information is needed here. One paragraph is not sufficient for a company as large as Glock.
 * Why did Gaston Glock found the company and how did it become a success?
 * Why did they move from manufacturing curtain rods to weaponry?
 * How has the company grown over time? What has happened with their revenue, staffing levels, etc?
 * Why did they move to the US? Was a market apparent over there and Glock wanted to capitalise on it, or were they invited over there by the military? Did they have to change their staffing, recruitment, internal processes, marketing, etc once they became international?
 * Have there been any controversies or lawsuits against Glock, such as wrongful death, inadequate safety, etc?
 * Products:
 * Needs an introductory paragraph to tie the subheadings together.
 * No explanation of Glock's entrenching tools, which are mentioned in the lead.
 * Handguns:
 * This section is essentially unreferenced.
 * "Glock sidearms are common handguns among law enforcement agencies and military organizations" - include a source that backs up this statement and list some of the organisations.
 * "They are said to be very reliable" - by who? Needs citation.
 * "The simplicity of the Glock design contributes to this reliability" - says who? Needs citation.
 * "The polymer frame makes them lighter than typical steel or aluminum-framed handguns" - how much lighter? Is there a significant difference, because that's interesting to the reader.
 * "Glock pistols do not have any external controls such as levers, decockers, or manual safeties (stock)" - do most pistols have these, and if so, why doesn't a Glock? Link or explain these terms; don't assume everyone reading the article is a gun expert.
 * "The popularity of Glock pistols inspired other manufacturers to begin production of similar polymer-framed firearms" - needs citation.
 * "Glocks tend to be in the middle of the price range for quality pistols" - is this true world-wide? How does one define a "quality" pistol?
 * How many units have been sold? How much revenue generated?
 * Knives:
 * Needs expansion. Is anything different about a Glock knife, or is it just a standard knife?
 * What are they used for, where are they produced, where are they sold?
 * How many have been sold? Are they expensive?
 * Subsidiaries:
 * Incorporate into History section with dates and explanations.
 * References:
 * The article needs many more independent and reliable sources.
 * What makes GlockFAQ a reliable source?
 * Literature:
 * Are these books about the gun or books about the company? Try to access these books and include them as references. Otherwise, retitle this section "Further reading".
 * External links:
 * Glock Post and Glock Talk are forums, which contain a lot of information.
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to provide that insight. It is very appreciated.  Gtstricky Talk or C 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Essentially I agree with Somno's opinions above, although I think GlockFAQ could have been considered reliable (listing its sources, and having recognized experts as its contributors), except that its disclaimer states, "the author and contributors assume no responsibility for errors or omissions", which is generally a big problem to considering it a reliable source (further minuses include contributors of unknown expertise and background). If possible, you could use it as a guide: find information on it and locate the original source that information came from, then cite the information back to the original source (verify it is in that source first). Other than that, the article also lacks information on the Glock factories. Are there one or many? Are any foreign? Is the labor required to be skilled before recruitment or simply trained? Does the company have a significant impact on the society (charity work, contributions to amenities improvement, etc)? Have there been any lawsuits brought against the company? Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from Jappalang