Talk:Type 85 submachine gun

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Type 85 submachine gun 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

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

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 not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

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.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Recommendations

B1 Good work on referencing items, but the bare links would be better if Template:cite web were used.

B2 Coverage of development is fine. However, there is so little on use, I'm reluctant to rate coverage as a yes.

B3 There is an infobox, but little in it. Without an image containing the weapon, and with an outstanding request for a photo, I think this isn't yes yet. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redid B1 criteria. Some of those links are really stubborn. Shotgunscoop (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]