Talk:Desert Tech MDR

Desert Tech MDR was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 31, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 November 2020 by reviewer Cerebellum (talk · contribs).

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 / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

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 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Desert Tech MDR/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Add topic