Talk:M1 Garand/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia: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 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 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'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)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)