Talk:CQC-6/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next couple days. In the meantime, I will be performing noncontroversial copyedits and other cleanup fixes. Then I will return with my review. I will not fail it if you cannot complete the review in one week; however, I do expect to see work on it or a note explaining why you cannot. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I should be available. Let me know whatever you need.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Overall, this article is decent. It has some issues that need fixing, mainly with regards to referencing.

Lead

• Design date (in the infobox) is unsourced and does not appear in the article body.

fixed!

• Number of knives built (also in the infobox) is unsourced.

removed.

• Quotation marks are not needed around the image caption.

fixed!

Specifications

• Looks good here. (I will assume that the offline sources provided support the claims in the article.)

History

• Looks pretty good.

Variants

• A few early models featured a titanium backspacer, replaced in later years by a backspacer made of G10 fiberglass. Some early CQC-6's featured cutouts in the micarta handle slabs for a small pair of tweezers as found on the Swiss Army Knife. Unreferenced.

fixed, feel free to delete second ref if not needed. Wasn't trying to be cheeky, just felt an online source would add to credibility.

It's perfectly fine! More sources is usually better, as long as you don't do something like: "The CQC-6 has a blade^{[1][3][7][11][12][13][14]}. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• The fifth and sixth paragraphs are completely unreferenced.

fixed

CQC-7

• In the image caption, please specify which knife is which.

fixed

References

• Refs #5 and #27: "pp" stands for "pages". When citing only one page, use "p".

fixed

External links

• Looks good.

Thanks for taking the time to look, I'll put some more work in on it this afternoon.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Much better! I will now pass the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No fair use images, so that does not apply.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Looks good! Thank you for your work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)