Wikipedia:Peer review/Cannon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cannon[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello. Cannon is the current main collaboration of the Tzatziki Squad, and some outside eyes may be quite helpful. The article is currently A-Class and is reasonably complete, but suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

  • The paragraphs in the lead ought to be recombined, 1-3 line paragraphs are rather too short.
  • The opening sentence of Etymology is a little confusing.
  • That section also has a liberal use of the dash which can be a little detracting to the readability.
    • Sorted, I left one pair of dashes that I thought were appropriate, are they alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aforementioned paragraph comment applies to the History section too.
    • Maam, yes maam. I think the entire page is filled with the damnable em dashes. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cannon are a descendant of the fire-lance,—as are other firearms—a gunpowder-filled tube," the comma before the dash, is that correct?
    • Nope, there were quite a few comma-dash combinations. They're all taken care of now. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would alternate the images from left to right.
  • "Bacon described firecrackers, "used in certain parts of the world"." is missing an [as]
    • Added, didn't need the square brackets though, as it wasn't in the quote. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No no I didn't mean for you to add the [], that was just me highlighting which word I thought needed to be added :) SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restoration section may need expanding to more than just restoration in the sea
    • I'm not sure there's much material to write about there, is there anything specific you would find helpful? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any information on restoration of just rusted or buried cannon, or disassembled, or cannon that has been disabled by firing it into the ground, say? I'm a layman at the topic so if there is nothing else to go in there I'll take your educated work over my guess SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How useful is the patent section?
    • Not useful, I moved the stuff to the external links section. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link in the External links section needs to be [www.google.com like this] rather than www.google.com like this
  • Are there any more categories to add?

All I can see at the moment, the content is good, hence the lack of comment on it. Mainly nit-picks really, good article. SGGH speak! 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback, I'll get right on it. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, let me know if there is anything else. SGGH speak! 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good work, everyone!!!! About time for a Nom? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to go over the article one more time and finish all that nitpicky stuff from Andonic's javascript, but it could be ready in under an hour. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ready, should we wait for another opinion? Keilana|Parlez ici 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not ready; a few things remain:
  1. Source everything (especially in the lead: each sentence should end with a reference).
  2. Copyedit at least three more times.
  3. Re-add dashes where appropriate (okay, so I overdid them: but J-stan and Keilana practically witch-hunted them out of extinction).
· AndonicO Hail! 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK you're not meant to source the lead. I'll copyedit once more, you and J-Stan can do it once (we would be doing that anyways) and the dash-comma combination isn't grammatically correct. We could use a few, but they were kind of overused in earlier versions, in my opinion. Keilana|Parlez ici 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to source in the lead if it is already explicitly referenced in the text, unless it is an exceptional claim which would need referencing. I think you are OK with the lead to be honest, though I don't like the constant repitition of Cannon at the beginning of sentences. I also don't think AC/DC should be mentioned in the lead, there are far more important things that could be listed there. Frankly, I don't even see why it is in the article at all.
I agree that another copyedit might be helpful, I saw a few run-on sentences and a couple of measurements that need nbsps. Other than that, it is looking good. A good example of summary style. I will take another deeper look soon. Woody (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's better to source the lead, since that's usually the first (or only, even) part of the article a reader reads. I've tidied up the lead a bit, per your suggestions. @Keilana: Dash/comma combination is correct, but I do agree that I tend to overuse it. I've added one back in that was correct. · AndonicO Hail! 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a dash/comma deal before. Well, I'll check through it through the day, run it through Word, see if microsoft has any suggestions we could use. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know most users won't get past the lead, but those same users that only read the lead won't check the sources for the most part. Woody (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, hadn't thought of that. Well, I guess we'll just have to check that everything in the lead is sourced further down, instead. @J-stan: Don't use Word, the grammar suggestions there aren't always good... · AndonicO Hail! 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, btw, the MOS states that its actually bad practice to cite the lead... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Askari Mark

Just a quick note on one weak area I encountered recently when wikilinking to this page: The use of “cannons” on military aircraft should be brought out more explicitly than a parenthetical pair of examples in the ‘Modern times’ subsection; it would be nice to have an overt subsection to link to. A picture of such a weapon mounted in an aircraft would be a plus. That same ‘Modern times’ paragraph would also benefit from further explanation of how such smaller-calibre weapons came to be called “cannons” (on fighters and tanks), particularly at a time when the term was being less and less used for artillery. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that look, so far (I'm not done yet, but I don't have time at the moment: someone feel free to have a go at it, while I return)? · AndonicO Hail! 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes last night, so please see what you think of them. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR comments from EyeSerene

Great article Keilana! Most of what I would have said is covered above, but I do have a few observations:

I think the lead still needs some work as far as summarising the rest of the article goes. A good rule of thumb is that it should be possible to delete the rest of the article and, with just the lead, provide a reader with a good grasp of the article subject. You could get away with expanding it further ;) On the sourcing point, it's not really necessary to provide citations in the lead, because content should be sourced in the main article below where it's covered in more detail (exception: WP:BLP!).

Also from the lead: "A cannon is a type of artillery...that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile over a distance." Using "gunpowder" in the definition is potentially confusing, especially as it's wikilinked to Gunpowder (which is basically black powder). Smokeless variants (eg Cordite) have been in use in cannons since the 18xx's - while technically still 'gunpowder', I think the distinction would be lost on the average lay-reader.

A general copyedit would be useful, mainly to tighten up the prose and clarify the odd awkward sentence and typo. To give a couple of examples, the sentence "The Spanish Kings enlisted "the first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" in the mid-14th century.[24] while hand guns were probably in use at this time, such as against the Mongols, and Italian scopettieri ("gun bearers") were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen in 1281." needs a bit of work, and in 18th and 19th century there is a paragraph starting with "But...".

The wikilinks could be checked over - I don't think it's really necessary to link "music", for example, but a link would be useful for "shrapnel".

I'm not sure the mention of torpedoes (in Middle east) is relevant to the article.

I spotted one or two claims that need explicit citations (for example, "The Tsar Cannon, founded by Russian founding master Andrey Chokhov in 1586, was the largest howitzer ever made.") Also, the first paragraph of Modern times makes a number of factual claims but has no references.

Some of the books listed as references have no ISBN information.

A couple of the external links in the article may need checking: the link URL for "Cannons and Gunpowder" (first 2 refs) doesn't match the address it goes to, and the same for "Artillery through the ages". Click here to check the links.

I enjoyed reading the article - hope this helps ;) All the best, EyeSereneTALK 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some quick work with your suggestions, I'll go back to it later. Thanks! Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on refs and copyediting, but I'm only around halfway through the article. Not enough time, sadly. :( And I thought I had removed the torpedo reference... Thanks for the suggestions. · AndonicO Hail! 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we mention Space guns? It would seem appropriate, as this is clearly based on cannon concepts. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those more science fiction than reality? · AndonicO Hail! 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think AndonicO is right, that might not be appropriate in this article and could detract from the focus. Things are coming along really well though - great work all! EyeSereneTALK 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo

A nice amount of content and good illustrations overall, though I have some pointers and suggestions:

  • The main article links and various see also-links under the sub-headings of "History" are a bit excessive.
  • "Cannon operation" is a bit over-specific. The duties of indivudal members of a gun crew are better described in the sub-article. It would also be better if the section was a bit more theoretical and not confined only to cannon operation ca 1600-1800.
  • "In music" borders on the trivial since the use of cannon in music is very limited. More than half the section is about various interpretations of 1812. If information like this should be included (and preferably in a summary form) it should be within a section on general cannon symbolism and other non-military use.
  • "Restoration" puzzles me. It's basically nothing but a conservation aspect of marine arcaeology and looks quite out of place in this article, or at least a separate section. Peter Isotalo 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions; I've removed the see also links from "Early modern period", as they both linked to Star fort (the other was a redirect), which was already in the main text. I think the entire "Middle East" section should be expanded, perhaps to include the two "Further information" linked articles. · AndonicO Hail! 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the over-specific details from the operation section. It was really specific. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cannon/archive1&oldid=1085562474"