Talk:Marlin Model 1894

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] WP:MOS for lead

To conform with Wikipedia's manual of style, the lead sentence should give a very brief description of what the subject is, something like, "The Marlin Model 1894 is…" I would edit this myself but I don't know enough about the subject to give a definition and I leave it up to the regular editors of this article to do this. Just a suggestion! Otherwise, the article looks very informative. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I've added a lead, but an editor with more experience about the subject may want to improve it. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction... Jeff tidyed it up to what I just saw. But your was a good start.  ;-) —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned actions up

These carbines were pretty rough — notchy and heavy trigger pulls — when new. I had a gunsmith slick up the actions. Now they work smoothly and nicely :) Jeff dean 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked other Marlins at dealers, and they all had the same very rough actions. Someone has to originate "research." That doesn't make it invalid. If someone publishes an article, that makes it valid; if not, it's invalid? Jeff dean 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have pondered what you say on several occasions. Here's what I came up with (which seems to go along with WP:OR)...

If you have some sort of credential that certifies that you know what your talking about (like if you are a gunsmith), then it's probably ok to add original research so long as the sources you used to come to your conclusion can be provided (ie. you personally smith'd the gun, and said so here).

Now about this particular case, upon reflection, I think that this discussion would suffice to justify the suggested inclusion. Essentially, your gun had a rough action, you went to a gunsmith, he made it smooth. That's probably not over the top. In fact, that's true of nearly all firearms (ie. a gunsmith can smooth the action). As such, I'll revert myself. Admittedly I maybe should have checked here first. Doh!

I would suggest though that a discussion be started on any original-ish research to be added to firearms articles before the info is added. Then we can get a community concensus on how valid it is and reverts like mine won't happen. Yeah? —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jeff dean 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed OR content that actions were all rough. Should have a citation on this claim or a quote, otherwise it is just opinion or a single experience that is non-encyclopedic in nature. May be true, but need a citation on this before including this info in the article. Yaf 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... alrighty then. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)