Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Enfield revolver

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Enfield revolver

As one of the four major British service revolvers (the other three being the Beaumont-Adams Revolver, the Webley revolver, and the Smith & Wesson Victory Model revolver), it seems appropriate that the Enfield revolver article be of the same status and quality (ie FA status) as the Webley Revolver article. As such. I've placed the article up for Peer Review, and made improvements as suggested from the feedback, and I'm now placing the article up for A class review as the the next step in the process. --Commander Zulu 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support — Very well written and clear. Concise without being too brief. Two comments: first, the left-aligned picture of the Enfield IV is covering up some text on my screen... I tried to reposition it without success. Second, if possible, I'd suggest photoshopping the flash out of the infobox picture — it's really distracting. It's a minor thing, and I'll still give support even if you can't furnish an updated picture. It works, but the flash is kind of distracting in my opinion. JKBrooks85 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply'- I don't have a copy of photoshop, so I'm unable to edit the flash out of the image, unfortunately. I don't know what can be done about the layout problems; it all looks very neat and tidy on my screen. --Commander Zulu 07:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Clear and concise. I would suggest, however, that the chronology of the weapon's development and use be made more clear. For example, explaining the original military requirement that initiated its design, the names of the engineers who worked on the design, testing and initial production of the weapon, its operational history (who used it and where), and its legacy and influence on modern firearms. Cla68 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.