Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Winchester Model 1200/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues: inline citations missing for certain claims, some sources unreliable or failing WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, could you be more specific please. It would help in addressing these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources are incomprehensible if you don't speak Russian, one citation links to a 96-page document in Polish with no detail/quote/page number, the variants section is almost completely unsourced, there are statistics unsourced by inline citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, I agree re the variants section. I think I have fixed two of your other concerns. Could you please be specific as to which material (statistics) give you concern. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specifications in the infobox need to either be sourced in the body or in the box itself; thanks for your other improvements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is scope for improvement. I have done some editing, including adding some references. I would observe that the volume of content is not a criteria but whether the content is adequate for the subject. It might be useful if any deficiency in content could be identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations still need work: some are from unreliable sources such as YouTube, some are inaccessible such as those from olive-drab.com, and some are dubious such as the numerous gun websites; I cannot comment on the reliability of the latter, but I will have to ask for expert opinion if they remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29, there are two Youtube videos cited for their visual content only. The first is a cut-away of a Model 12 which clearly shows it has a tilting breechblock. It also show only one slide rail. The second, of a deer combo as supplied by Winchester, with box label and corresponding contents. I would think these are both fit for purpose. Olive Drab is a legacy source which I have retained on face value, in that while it is now dead, it was verifiable. It is used to support that the AR-7 was the first using a rotating bolt and the years that the 1200 was acquired by the army. To the former, that might be removed without detriment to the article (IMHO). There are a number of published sources (google books here) but they cannot be viewed and I do not have access to them. In short, I have tried to do the best I can with what I have. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 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.