Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AK-47/archive1

AK-47

I feel this artcile is well written, using accessible language, follows the appropriate style, is informative, and generally fulfills the criteria for being a featured article. I have made significant additions and I know feel that the subject is thoroughly covered, without going into excessive detail or becoming boring.CynicalMe 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Very well done. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for now, because of: change to support, but see below

1 No inline citations as far as I can see (2c). A lot of people (and I'm one of them) think that inline citations are important to see which source the information comes from. This is my major reason to oppose FA-status.

2 In the section on the Design Background: [the] Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) was not the first rifle to use these features; it was preceded by earlier Italian and Russian designs. Which designs? Name and/or links please.

3 The legal status in nations outside North America ought to be adressed, even briefly.

4 Would it be possible to get pictures of the different models of receivers next to each other? Would make it a lot easier to visualise the changes. Not a big issue thought.

5 Image:AK-components.jpg uses an outdated PD-tag and ought to be updated btw.

WegianWarrior 07:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

5. I've updated the fair use on the image. Its late night here, so I will tackle the other issues in the morning. Thanks for the input. CynicalMe 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2. I've added another image which shows 2 rifles, 1 with a stamped receiver, and one with a milled, side by side to illustrate the differences. CynicalMe 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've added numbers to your objections to make it easier to refer to them. Hope that was ok. CynicalMe 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Addressed legal status a little bit. Its hard to determine how to find an encyclopedic and NPOV way to say "aint legal in most countries". Again, I'm open to suggestions. CynicalMe 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2.5 Also, the history behind the Sturmgewehr 44 is fleshed out more in that article. I didn't think too much of the background was rel. for inclusion. CynicalMe 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting, even if issue 2 has not been adressed (please fix this, or consider rewording/removing the statement). I've also taken the liberty of adding {{fact}}-tags to statements in the article I feel need citations. Keep it up =) WegianWarrior 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at all of those issues ASAP.CynicalMe 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I think I covered everything. Please advise. CynicalMe 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Much improved. Tony 04:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)I was hoping that the fourth word at the top wasn't a sign of the quality of the prose in the article. Someone who's relatively unfamiliar with the text needs to go through it thoroughly to bring it up to the standard required of FAs. I've copy-edited the lead; here's the subsequent half-paragraph:

"During the Second World War, Germany had developed the concept of the assault rifle. This concept was based on the knowledge that most military engagements in modern warfare were happening at fairly close range with the majority happening within 100 meters. The power and range of contemporary rifle cartridges was simply overkill for a vast majority of engagements with small arms. As a result, a cartridge and firearm were sought combining the features of ,,,"

• • Opening sentence—put the theme at the start: "The concept of the assault rifle was developed by Germany during the First World War." See how much easier it is to read?
  • "were happening" might be better as "occur".
  • Unsure what "fairly" means—we need precision here, so remove the word? What "close range" means will be clarified later, anyway.
  • Comma after "range".
  • "With" is a tired back-connector; why not just: "... close range, mostly within 100 meters."?
  • Remove "contemporary" as redundant?
  • We have "majority of" twice.
  • "Sought" is too vague. Try something like "military authorities in [the major European powers? Russia?] saw the need to develop ...".

Don't just correct these examples. Network to find copy-editors who are interested in helping on this topic. (See the "history" pages of similar FAs/articles.) Other contributors here seem to be succeeding in this respect. Tony 09:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The more people that get involved the better. I've seen the same text so many times it gets difficult for me to even notice glaring errors and typos. CynicalMe 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, made changes to the prose throughout. CynicalMe 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made more inline citations. Please advise. Also, again, I've taken the liberty of adding little checkmarks next to objections for my own reference, to make sure I am addressing everything. CynicalMe 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding in which military forces it is in use today?

Most actual "armies" have moved on to weapons based on the AK-74, like Russia has, or developed their own weapons. Most current users of the AK-47 per se are not going to be organized armies. CynicalMe 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of the concerns and objections thus far. I would greatly appreciate it if the editors who suggested them would go over the article again and tell me if they find it acceptable now.CynicalMe 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written article. I also would like to thank CynicalMe for his contributions and diligent maintenance of the article. (Igny 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. CynicalMe 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit vague on the process here. What happens next, if no more objections are raised? CynicalMe 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support stumbled on this other day. Very well-done. igordebraga ≠ 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very well done! Not that I know that much about guns, but interesting nonetheless. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been very few comments for the last few days. I think it is safe to assume that concensus has been reached. CynicalMe 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A very nice article! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written artical, information, easy readable, enough information

Don't have any comments at all, nice job!

Thank you for this article! Carpetsmoker 06:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written, well-referenced, interesting to read, good length, nice use of images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nicely done. American Patriot 1776 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)