Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Cannon

Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan

This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I made some fixes to the image placement per WP:MOS#Images, but otherwise it looks great. Nice work! VanTucky 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes and support. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination. Towards the end of the run, I did a bit of work with referencing and copyediting, but the real stars of the show are Keilana, Biblio, Jstan, and, of course, AO. Very well done to everyone. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think this support is valid... you came late but you did quite a bit of work. · AndonicO Hail! 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added this to my list of FACs I'll feel guilty if I don't review at some stage. Out of curiosity, does having that list of nominators actually mean anything? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does. Per articlestats, they all made significant contributions to the article. See the WP:FAC instructions on contributors supporting and objecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • He means he'll review it later on. · AndonicO Hail! 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether to add my name to the nominators or support (didn't know about articlestats before - seems I have the second most edits). I expanded a bit on Vauban though. I also extend my commendations to AndonicO for his sterling work to this article. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Just did a read-through, and it's fantastic. I send a virtual hardy slap on the back to all those involved in its development! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That hurt... thanks! ;) · AndonicO Hail! 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had one nitpick about the cannon's meaning in the 1812 Overture, but I fixed it myself. I'm so WP:BOLD. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't in the page history, are you sure you saved it? · AndonicO Hail! 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:

  • While the general list of references is decent—if a bit lacking in works on artillery specifically—the actual citations are somewhat less serious than I would have expected. For a topic on which so many academic works have been written, the heavy reliance on dictionaries and non-scholarly websites seems surprising, to say the least.
  • Focusing on the "Early modern period" section in particular:
    • The text seems to wander around somewhat haphazardly. The lack of chronological order in the points mentioned adds to the confusion—we jump back and forth from late 16th-century Russian sieges, to late 15th-century wheeled carriages, to mid-17th-century Swedish tactics, and back to early 16th-century Italian fortifications. This also introduces some potential points of confusion; for example, explosive shells predate the invention of the mortar, canister/case shot was available long before Gustavus Adolphus used it, and so forth.
    • More generally, there seems to be a certain lack of focus on the most salient points. The move from siege weapons to field artillery is glossed over; Machiavelli is an inadequate source, and Flodden is more suited to be a secondary example than as the only mention of an engagement involving artillery. Similarly, the development of fortifications to deal with cannon is devoid of historical detail; there's a great deal that can be said here beyond the single mention of Vauban.
    • Field artillery is generally forgotten in favor of naval artillery; there's little mention of any developments—or, indeed, of what cannons were actually used for on the battlefield—until we get to the middle of the 19th century.

In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm working a bit on Early modern period now. For the moment, I've removed the Vauban information, as it was unsourced, and repeated what was already mentioned. I'll try to find something with more details from G-books, to expand on what was already said. The points of confusion you mention, however, are stated as you say, and I don't think they're confusing... It says the Dutch "learned to shoot bombs filled with powder," not that they used them for the first time; the same with Adolphus: he "pioneered the use of canister shot against infantry," rather than invented it.
  • Does the wording for siege engines read less "glossy" now? I'll try to find something to support Machiavelli a bit later, as well as another example other than Flodden, and a documentation on a battle involving light cannon in the 16th/17th century.
  • Further, I think the "Artillery Through the Ages" book contains more info (I think I remember reading it, at least) about this period; I'll take a second look later today, and add anything useful.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review. · AndonicO Hail! 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I re-ordered that section also; is it better? · AndonicO Hail! 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:
  • I'd strongly recommend Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics as a source for that portion of the article.
  • The trace italienne is not a specific type of star fort, nor identified particularly by having batteries; rather, it's the original name for the style of fortification that reached its height with the star fort.
Kirill 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try to find that book. I've removed the mention of the trace italienne. I'm adding a bit more on Adolphus now, I'll get around to re-adding Vauban and finding a few appropriate battles to add details of tomorrow. · AndonicO Hail! 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Some possibilities for battles:
  • Cerignola (1503) and Ravenna (1512) are decent early examples of artillery being used in defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Post-Ravenna, field artillery is pretty much used in standard ways until Adolphus & Co. come up with horse artillery. It may also be useful to discuss grapeshot, Napoleonic artillery, and so forth, but that'd be a bit later.
  • Padua (1509) is a good example for the development of new fortifications to withstand cannon, if you need one; but there's relatively little information on it that's easily found.
(These are just suggestions, incidentally, and likely colored by my own area of interest; so please feel free to ignore them if you find something more suitable to use.) Kirill 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your suggestions are appreciated, unfortunately, it's late, and I've been editing for a few hours straight, so I think I'll turn in for now. I'll take a look at that tomorrow, and add it in where appropriate (also found the Battle of Breitenfeld, which might deserve a mention). Thanks again for your input, it's been very helpful. · AndonicO Hail! 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I added some material on Vauban with references. We could also stand to have some more mention of gabions - they were a feature of cannon warfare in the Early Modern Europe. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the following issues can be fixed.
    • Are some of the individual year links necessary? There's some MoS guideline page which advises against individual year linking, unless it is useful in the context of the article.
    • Inconsistent referencing: please include publisher location, publisher, page numbers and date, where applicable.
    • Ref #4: http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm is not a reliable source. What's strange enough is that you guys are now referencing from a guy who referenced from Wikipedia (see the last sentence of his page).
      • Removed one instance of this source, and used a different one for the other claims. · AndonicO Hail! 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #5: http://www.the-tudors.org.uk/mary-rose-warship.htm is not a reliable source.
      • Replaced with similar information sourced by Webster's Dictionary, Britannica, and another book. · AndonicO Hail! 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #6: http://www.defencenews.com.au/article-archive.cfm?ID=513&currentpage=2&detail=yes&thiscatid=0 doesn't work for me. Broken link?
      • Works perfectly for me... maybe try this link (removed an unecessary bit from the end of the url)? · AndonicO Hail! 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #10: Is http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/1/31.html a reliable source? It comes from the website of a museum, but we don't know who authored the page.
    • Ref #11: Science & Civilisation in China, vol. V:7: The Gunpowder Epic – is the bolded text correct?
      • I mis-formatted the ref template, fixed. · AndonicO Hail! 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #15: The 1990 edition was authored by David Harding according to Google Books. However, Amazon.com and Google Books list the "Diagram Group" as the author of the book's other editions. Diagram Group is not the publisher.
      • Fixed publisher, and added author/ISBN. · AndonicO Hail! 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #18: http://www.history-forum.com/ is not a reliable source. Please find a replacement source.
      • Replaced with a book. · AndonicO Hail! 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #19 and 20 need publisher info.
      • Question (not done): I think "History of Science and Technology in Islam" would be the publisher, in this case, as they seem to be articles published directly onto the website by Ahmad Y Hassan; I'm pretty sure they're reliable sources though, considering they're from him. Also, do we need publisher information for all cite web sources? I thought it was more important for cite book (or perhaps I assumed that). · AndonicO Hail! 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The publisher would actually be Ahmad Y Hassan, since it's his self-published website (I could have brought up WP:SELFPUB, but Hassan seems to be an expert and a scholar on the matter, so it's a reliable source). Publisher info is more important for cite book than for cite web. However, I still feel that this information should not be neglected. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #25: http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/gunpowde.htm is not a reliable source.
      • Claim removed: 45 minutes of searching turned up nothing. · AndonicO Hail! 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #27 and #29: http://www.mediumaevum.com is not a reliable source.
      • Removed, as #27 wasn't relevant, and #29 was sourced by a better reference anyway. · AndonicO Hail! 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #30: http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/gp_wpns.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Ref #33: http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-cannon.htm says the © 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace; Reproduced with permission from "The People's Almanac" series of books." You might want to use the book as a direct reference.
      • Changed source to "The People's Almanac". · AndonicO Hail! 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid it's very bad practice to change the reference without having seen the source you cite. If you can't find the book, you must at least note that you came by the information via the website, I feel. Also, just as a general question to anyone, do we cite unsigned EB articles? I wouldn't, as a standalone cite. 86.44.18.217 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #39: could you provide a page number for the direct quote from Machiavelli's The Art of War?
    • Ref #50: http://www.civilwarhome.com/artillery.htm is not a reliable source.
    • Ref #51: Needs publisher info, date, etc.
      • Added publisher and year. · AndonicO Hail! 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #52: Is the author (W. L. Ruffell) a reliable source?
      • Yes, a quick research reveals he is an expert on the subject of medieval artillery and siege machinery. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #56: More details – publisher, author, location, page numbers?
      • Added publisher, year, accessdate, and url. · AndonicO Hail! 21:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #61: http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/mortars.htm is not a reliable source.
      • Sentence removed: again 40+ minutes of looking, and I've got nothing. · AndonicO Hail! 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #66: Is http://www.avalanchepress.com/BritainsAntiTankGuns.php a reliable source? Avalanche Press is a board wargames company. At the bottom of the page, it says "To see these guns in action, buy one (or all) of these great titles TODAY!", followed by some links to Avalanche Press games. The reliability of this website is questionable, at best.
      • Added a more reliable source, confirming that one. · AndonicO Hail! 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #67: http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-tanks.htm is an unreliable source.
      • Replaced with a book. · AndonicO Hail! 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #68: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/ is not a reliable source.
    • Ref #70–71: Is military.com a reliable source?
      • In this case, I would say so. [1] explains some, I think we can consider their technical information reliable in this case, but there may be material there that would be unsuited as reference material. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #73–74: These need publisher info, date accessed, date created, author, etc.
    • Ref #78 says the 1771 edition of EB was published in London; EB was published from 1768 to 1771 in Edinburgh.
    • Ref #80: http://www.musicwithease.com/tchaikovsky-1812-overture.html does not corroborate the statement made that the 1812 Overture featured a cannon.
    • Ref #81: Needs publisher info, author, date created, etc. This should be formatted with {{cite news}}, not {{cite web}}.
    • Ref #82: {{Cite book}} should be used, not cite web. The book's title also needs to be used, not "Tchaikovsky – Google Book Search"
    • Ref #85: http://library.thinkquest.org/5116/percussion.htm is not a reliable source; furthermore, I think it was written by some middle schoolers.
      • I've removed the information, the link is now broken and I can't find another citation. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref #88: Is Songfacts a reliable source?
      • No, I have removed it as the material was cited to a more reliable source first. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of these websites are self-published and the page creator is not necessarily an expert on the matter (or rather, there is no indication the author is an expert). This is why I labeled them as unreliable sources.
    • In the "References" section, you include location in only a few references. Please provide the publisher location for all book refs.
    • I may most more comments later. I haven't read the article yet. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try to fix up the refs you've suggested. · AndonicO Hail! 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All done Nishkid. Anything else? · AndonicO Hail! 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've addressed this point. --GrahamColmTalk 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, the few you fixed were actually fine... I had already removed the MOS-violating ones. Mind re-adding them (I'm not able to now...)? · AndonicO Hail! 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have made some changes to the article, [2] and I'm prepared to support the nomination subject to the problems with the references being solved.--GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Refs 6 and 94, done. 25 had the publisher, but it wasn't displaying due to a formatting error. For #27, I've added publisher, year, and location. I added publisher, year, and ISBN for #59, and inserted "p." before page numbers. I'll look for ISBN numbers now. · AndonicO Hail! 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been watching you working. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments added back. I've removed the superscript tags. Andonic, I will comb through the article and look for referencing issues. In the meantime, could you address my first point regarding individual year links? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I've unlinked all of them. I'm still looking for ISBNs, and adding the books in "Notes" to the "References" section. · AndonicO Hail! 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. A wonderful article. It's balanced, comprehensive and well-written. Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.