Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to get this article into shape for a good article nomination, and I think it's coming along nicely. Other editors and I are hammering out its NPOV balance, and we need an image, but other than that, I think it looks good and would like an outside evaluation. (We had a brief blip in collaboration, but the problematic editor has since been blocked for socking.)

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence in the lede should have a citation; currently, the sentence says that the loophole refers to a perceived lack of federal regulation with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between unlicensed private citizens, but doesn't say from where that information was found.
• A citation is needed at the end of the sentence referencing the 1999 report by the ATF.
• Consider putting the information about what the gun control advocates and gun rights advocates want in one paragraph – I don't see a reason why these would need to be separate. I would strongly recommend citing those claims as well.
• Can you name and/or cite the seven gun show loophole bills that were introduced in the U.S. House and Senate between 2001 and 2013? Adding a citation after the claim that some states do require background checks while others don't would be good, too.
• The alternate names for the loophole (found in "Overview") should probably be mentioned in the lede.
• Consider breaking up the information under "Early efforts" into subsections so that it doesn't read as one large block of text.
• Great job linking to main articles throughout the text and in the "See also" section.
• Well-sourced in the main part of the article.

Overall, I think the article has some really good information. I would recommend you check out WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS, but I think this article off to a great start. MJ94 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]