Talk:Desert Tech MDR/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrozenIceman01, thanks for your work on this article over the past few years. Unfortunately, I am closing this nomination as a quick-fail, as I feel it falls well short of the sourcing requirements necessary for a Good article. Criterion 1 of the "Immediate failures" says "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." Specifically, I feel that this article does not meet [[WP:GACR|Criterion 2b}}: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines".

In total, 27 references are listed in this article.

Ref #1 is a primary source: Desert Tech, the manufacturer of the article's subject. This reference is used 13 times.
Refs #2 and #3 are probably fine.
Ref #4 appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight.
Ref #5 is probably fine.
Ref #6 is probably fine.
Ref #7 appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight (same site as ref #4).
Ref #8 is the manufacturer's blog.
Ref #9 looks like a puff piece by a company selling the gun.
Ref #10 is probably fine.
Ref #11 is a primary source for the part in question.
Ref #12 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #13 is a YouTube video, which is generally considered unreliable.
Ref #14 is probably fine.
Ref #15 is probably fine.
Ref #16 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #17 is the manufacturer's blog.
Ref #18: I'm not sure about this one, as I can't tell who the study is by. Could be fine, could be bad.
Ref #19 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #20 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #21 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #22 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.
Ref #23 is from the manufacturer's website.
Ref #24 is probably fine for what it is supporting.
Ref #25 is from the manufacturer's website.
Ref #26 is from the manufacturer's website.
Ref #27 is a YouTube video from the manufacturer.

A few primary sources would not be a problem, but this article relies almost entirely upon them and third-party blogs or YouTube videos with no clear editorial oversight. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see details of what can and can't be used for various information. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.