Talk:C14 Timberwolf

It is requested that an image or photograph of C14 Timberwolf be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

C14 Timberwolf was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 19, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C14 Timberwolf article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:C14 Timberwolf rifle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
References need to be properly formatted, please read and understand WP:Cite. Bare html refrences are not suitable for a GA. There is an outstanding citation needed tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
OK
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
See above Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
OK
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
not applicable.

further to above the acronyms such as MRSWS and PGW need explanation when first used. The grammar is poor - the article is not reasonably well written. It does not really follow WP:MOS. statements such as "Below is some more in depth information on the MRSWS." are not encyclopaediac. I am quickfailing this article. Please bring back when expanded, rewritten and properly cited. At present this is merely start class. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

C14 Timberwolf was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 7, 2009). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:C14 Timberwolf/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Right, let's start at the top. The lead is fragmentary and needs to be spliced into a couple of small paragraphs, not several sentences on their own

It also reads like a sales brochure and needs to be toned down and made to sound more professional

The small sections on each part of the weapon are poorly written and lack punctuation - in fact, so does most of the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Is this really all that is available for this weapon? I realize that it is new, but surely more can be found on it? Some of the sections are wafer-thin

Numerous areas are uncited, and all of the sections on each part of the weapon can be coalesced into a single section
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Seems to lack extensive coverage and is practically a coatrack of an article without more information. It is at least focused/
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There must be images of the weapon available - from official Canadian armed forces websites and the like.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

No real effort seems to have been made to improve this article since its last review in May. Large sections are uncited, gramar is terrible, as is punctuation, and there is little to no detail in numerous sections. Images, although not required, would also be useful and surely easy to acquire. Thus, I am quickfailing the article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C14 Timberwolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622135251/http://www.casr.ca:80/101-rifle-c14-timberwolf.htm to http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c14-timberwolf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C14 Timberwolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622135251/http://www.casr.ca:80/101-rifle-c14-timberwolf.htm to http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c14-timberwolf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]