Talk:Charter Arms Bulldog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

A fact from Charter Arms Bulldog appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 October 2007.

Charter Arms Bulldog was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: October 29, 2007

Charter Arms Bulldog was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 14, 2008

Contents 1 GA Review 2 GA review 3 Many corrections needed 4 Why only metric units?

[edit] GA Review

Good stuff so far. This is a clear, concise, and easy-to-understand article with good citations. However, it does not yet provide comprehensive coverage of the subject, thus violating item 4c in the review guidelines. Ideally, I'd recommend including the history behind the design process, the history of its production, what the gun was used for, who bought it, and examples of the most famous usages of the gun. How did it affect history? Who used it? The article mentions that more than 500,000 were built... there should be at least one or two famous uses or owners. The article also mentions that production has been restarted -- why was this done? Was it pure profitability, or simply because gun buyers liked it so much? You've got a great start and excellent coverage of what the gun is the various models.

In short, the article has excellent breadth, but not much depth. I think an article should have both in order to pass a GA review. If you have trouble finding reliable information, keep plugging away and put what you can find. Some is better than none, and if you still find yourself running into a brick wall, don't be afraid to let the review expire so you can submit it again at a later date. Good luck, and I look forward to the result! JKBrooks85 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added new information and corrected an inaccurary from the previous version. I hope what I've done is enough because I can't find anymore information. Gothbag 10:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gothbag's done a great deal of work on this article, and done a good job with the resources at hand, but the article is still too limited in scope and depends too heavily on few sources, particularly the manufacturer's information. If this article is to be submitted for another GA review, it needs to be expanded in scope in order to give a thorough history of the weapon, its design, manufacturing, use, and whether or not it still is used in large numbers today. I'd suggest looking for newspaper articles, police reports, more impartial reviewers, and other sources. The article also needs a thorough copyediting for style, spelling, and flow, but this should not take place until the article is filled out with more information.

Overall, it's a good start, but just that -- a start. JKBrooks85 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A few prose issues and some concerns about the sources

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• The lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Perhaps another sentence or two on the performance?
• Probably don't need to link press and bullets
• Per WP:MOS#Autoformatting and linking probably shouldn't link the single years.
• History section, second paragraph, the second sentence, the last phrase, the worst what? Worst produced? Worst in terms of quality control? The statement lacks context.
• Same section and paragraph, the next sentence "It was produced again by Charter 2000; this company which failed either, improved the weapon with ..." Do you mean that the company failed also?
• Ammunition section, consider combing these paragraphs together as they are all very short and give the prose a choppy feel.
• Same section, second paragraph, the first sentence makes no sense at all to me. Needs to be reworded.
• Folks hunt with revolvers???
• Models section, first paragraph. The first sentence is awkward, consider rewording it to something like "Five models of the Bulldog have been produced, allowing customers to choose between..."
• Bans section, this heading is awkward. Consider changing it to Legal restrictions and possibly expanding it? It's very short
• Same section The first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Toldedo, Ohio allows the possession of guns, but doesn't allow the possession of the Bulldog, among other guns."
• Also consider expanding the appearances in media section
• Current ref 1 needs publisher information.
• http://www.gunblast.com/ What makes this a reliable source?
• What makes this http://www.allserialkillers.com/david_berkowitz.htm a reliable site?
• Likewise http://www.recguns.com/?
• http://www.thegunzone.com/? And http://www.levergun.com/main_index.htm?
• IMDb isn't the best source for things like goofs in film. I'm not going to hold the article back because of this one, but it won't pass muster at FAC, just letting you know.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no movement on this, if I don't have some reply by tomorrow I'll have to go ahead and fail the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I corrected things and such. By now I don't have more sources than the original ones. Gothbag (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that second sentence means, do you mean that you don't have any more sources? Or that you don't have access to some of the sources that are missing publisher information? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard nothing back on this, so I'm failing the article's GA nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many corrections needed

This article seems like it was written by somebody with little familiarity with firearms and has numerous problems:

• This sentence needs to be corrected: "It was produced again by Charter 2000; this company, which failed also, improved the weapon with a one-piece barrel, a front sight as well as an ejector assembly." It implies that the earlier version had no front sight or ejector assembly. Does it mean that the new version had a one-piece front sight and ejector assembly, or that these two parts were improved?
• The two sentences on Toledo and Ohio should be deleted. It is apparent from a review of the statute that some Bulldogs are banned because of their barrel length, which gives them the same status of numerous other listed and unlisted snubnosed revolvers. There is nothing noteworthy about the Bulldog in this regard and it is not encyclopedic to include its entry on the Toledo list. In fact, the "Target" and "Tracker" versions of the Bulldog are included in Toledo's list of compliant revolvers, making the entire entry in the article incorrect.
• The barrel lengths listed do not account for the Target and 4" Tracker versions, and the article discusses neither variant. The article also omits describing the "Pug" variant.
• Notwithstanding the citation to an article, the statement, "the fact that it has no sharp edges to contend with when carrying the weapon in a holster or a pocket" is flatly incorrect. The standard Bulldog has a spur hammer and thus has obvious sharp edges and is not preferred for pocket carry. Perhaps the citation is specific to the Pug model, and if so, this should be made clear.
• "It features a concave sight" needs to be clarified--front or rear? And why is this even significant?
• "Its trigger, in both single and double-action modes, is quite soft." Incorrect terminology, unless one is commenting on the quality of the metal. "Soft" here apparently relates to trigger pull. If the Bulldog has a relatively light trigger pull, state that and give measurements in pounds to support it.
• The discussion of how the transfer bar mechanism works has nothing to do with Performance. That category in gun articles usually discusses how the cartridge the gun fires performs. Further, the term transfer bar is not even mentioned. The concept is discussed in firing pin.
• The entire Ammunition section is full of POV and and some downright silly things ("too much recoil"; "most effective ammo"; "load of choice"; "strong penetration"; etc.) Hunting? Hunting what--moose? "Load of choice"? For whom? This wording is laughable and well below standards: "the shot is very powerful and has a strong penetration." Sounds like it was written by either a child or somebody for whom English is not his or her first language (as does much of the article). (Sorry to be harsh in tone, but that's the way I really see this entire article, though I appreciate the effort.)
• Why is everything in metric units (see separate entry below)?
• The entries in the table need attention. What does a "full" grip mean? That is not a common descriptor for grips, such as target, combat, boot, compact, or finger-groove. Does a "regular" hammer mean a spur hammer? "Regular" is not a proper term. And "Double Action Only" is not a hammer style--does the author mean it is a bobbed or hammerless (internal hammer) variant? Those would be the proper terms.

A lot of work needs to be done to make this a coherent and credible article.--Ana Nim (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why only metric units?

For a US made handgun, why are all of the units presented in metric units? I do not believe that follows form to other firearm pages. I would think the units should be first in English units with metric in parentheticals. This is especially so when discussing barrel lengths, which are most commonly expressed in inches.--Ana Nim (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)