This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CornerShot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | CornerShot was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article is not neutral point-of-view and lacks source citations for much of anything. It clearly consists mostly of material culled from the product literature provided by the manufacturer of the product.
1) Intro paragraph is far more about the company, how international it is and how much attention they are getting than it is about the alleged topic of the article! This strongly suggests " autobiography" in the form of someone from the company working on the article. 2) Makes unsubstantiated claims, for example regarding muzzle velocity and range - this is very non-NPV, and is simply marketing until confirmed by some other source. 3) Makes subjective claims, e.g. that the weapon is "lightweight" (by whose definition? Instead, provided the actual weight).
I'm not the only one to note these issues; User:RPellessier and User:GangstaEB have improved it substantially, but it still needs a lot of work, especially in the form of neutral-party sources on the performance claims made by the manufacturer. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib] ツ 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Original version: "The hammer, barrel, and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge. There is a camera and a flashlight attached where the bayonet was attached in the 1700s. On the other side of the hinge there is the trigger, the camera screen, and the camera and flashlight controls."
My version: "The hammer, barrel, magazine and most other moving parts are all on the muzzle end of the weapon, which bends horizontally at a mid-gun hinge. There is a digital camera and a flashlight attached to the barrel in the bayonet position. On the butt side of the hinge are the trigger, camera screen, and controls for the camera and light."
My edit fixes all of the following:
1) Outright factual inaccuracy: "all other moving parts" are not at the front of the gEun; the trigger is a moving part 2) Factual inaccuracy by way of poorly constructed phrase: "the hammer, barrel and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge" is absurd. The barrel cannot possibly bend, or the ammo could not be fired! 3) "and twist at a hinge" i.e. vertically - unsource and frankly implausible claim, that is not supported by the photos nor any citation to published facts. This "twist" claim was not actually removed, simply commented out with a note that it was too implausible without citation to more evidence. 4) Which end is what is now clearer. 5) Ludicrous claim that bayonets are a solely 1700s technology removed. 6) Now says where the hinge is in relation to other parts of the gun. 7) Informal language cleaned up, and made clearer/more specific (and grammatical as to plurality): "on the other side .. there is the..." -> "on the butt side ... are the..." 8) Clarified that the camera is digital (this is a significant fact; an optical system would be rather complicated and require mirrors; some SWAT equipment DOES in fact use purely optical systems to look around corners, so this point isn't silly or trivial) 9) Made closing phrase less repetitive and easier to read ("camera ... and ... camera and" is hard to parse).
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib] ツ 07:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added Template:Unverifiedimage tags on images used here. They are all mislabeled as Template:web-screenshot. Please add the correct image license tag and whether they are fair use or have been released by copyright owner. Thanks. Ytny 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that seems missing to me is a subsection on, and info about, the "version that can fit existing automatic weapons such as the M16", which is mentioned but has a notable absence of deets. Great that a clear pic of the anti-tank model was available. Schweet. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the beef? Get some details and info on the standard edition. We got plenty of features told that is for all the weapons, but I'm sure there's one on the standard that isn't on all the weapons. Gang sta EB ( sliding logs~ dive logs) 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references. Tarret 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, I find the 4-in-one pic to be not very useful - I don't think people should have to click on a photo to make it out, and even clicking on this one doesn't make it big enough to see any real detail. Also I liked the layout much better with the separate pics. It made the article look very "robust". If the four-in-one is kept, it should be replaced with a big version at least 100% larger than the current one. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The four pics sorta had a fair use problem since their was cramming. I hated taking out the original 4. GangstaEB~( penguin logs) 02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but its not as likely to bring up one because their was 2 many pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.245.28 ( talk • contribs)
I was surprised there was no mention of recoil. Ordinarily a weapon's recoil if focused at the operators shoulder. This gun sends most of it's energy perpendicular to the standard, doesn't that make it possible and or likely that the gun will be 'knocked' to the side after each shot? Even for a strong person this kind of leverage would be very difficult. Vicarious 07:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Krummlauf Attachment, which was the German attempt to do exactly the same thing during WW II, using the technology of the day. KTo288 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
it's not designed to take on tanks, so why would it be under that catagory?
I guess terrorists hide behind corners, but still...
I noticed it had there under "Wars" that it has been used it. I didn't think this was appropriate as I haven't seen the War on Crime or the War on Drugs listed in this way, and that's the sense of the word in question. I had a look around the article on the 'War on Terror' and didn't see anything to the contrary so I've removed the reference here. Gregory j 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You clearly don't watch FutureWeapons, this gun was designed for use in urban combat by israel and has since been sold to the U.S. 69.140.35.147 ( talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. At first glance, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. There may be more problems but these are the most obvious.
There are other problems, but these are the most glaring issues. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Should a popular culture reference be added here linking to its usage in the movie Wanted_(film)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampus ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget when Mythbusters used it because of Wanted 69.140.35.147 ( talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence in Overview is fragmented; "Its designers were two former Israeli Army senior officers Amos Golan, with sponsorship by American investors." We have two designers, and then we only have one listed in a manner that suggests after the comma the other name will come up. Amos Golan does not strike one as two people.
Y'all might want to include that the Mexican Special Forces, I think, are using the Israeli-made Cornershot with Glock attachment. Seen here: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/Moyocoyatzin/6e680b87007da94800yt2.jpg
Brody Kennen ( talk) 08:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If we end up with an "In popular culture" section again, a CornerShot was used (just this week) in The Last Ship, season 2, episode 4, starting at about 00:20:57 into the show (not counting commercial breaks). This may well be the first glimpse most viewers have had of the CornerShot. In the show, it's in the possession of a highly trained unit of mercenaries, British, Spanish, etc. Not much has been revealed about them as of yet in the show, and it's unclear if the CornerShot reappear.
We should probably come up with other cases, and please write it as a prose paragraph, not a list of trivia. Such sections are not necessarily trivial if they're written well. The aforementioned use of the CornerShot in Wanted leading directly to Mythbusters devoting time to it is a case in point; it's a mainstream secondary source responding, with detailed coverage, to the public reaction (mostly with disbelief) to the film usage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on CornerShot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CornerShot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | CornerShot was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This article is not neutral point-of-view and lacks source citations for much of anything. It clearly consists mostly of material culled from the product literature provided by the manufacturer of the product.
1) Intro paragraph is far more about the company, how international it is and how much attention they are getting than it is about the alleged topic of the article! This strongly suggests " autobiography" in the form of someone from the company working on the article. 2) Makes unsubstantiated claims, for example regarding muzzle velocity and range - this is very non-NPV, and is simply marketing until confirmed by some other source. 3) Makes subjective claims, e.g. that the weapon is "lightweight" (by whose definition? Instead, provided the actual weight).
I'm not the only one to note these issues; User:RPellessier and User:GangstaEB have improved it substantially, but it still needs a lot of work, especially in the form of neutral-party sources on the performance claims made by the manufacturer. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib] ツ 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Original version: "The hammer, barrel, and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge. There is a camera and a flashlight attached where the bayonet was attached in the 1700s. On the other side of the hinge there is the trigger, the camera screen, and the camera and flashlight controls."
My version: "The hammer, barrel, magazine and most other moving parts are all on the muzzle end of the weapon, which bends horizontally at a mid-gun hinge. There is a digital camera and a flashlight attached to the barrel in the bayonet position. On the butt side of the hinge are the trigger, camera screen, and controls for the camera and light."
My edit fixes all of the following:
1) Outright factual inaccuracy: "all other moving parts" are not at the front of the gEun; the trigger is a moving part 2) Factual inaccuracy by way of poorly constructed phrase: "the hammer, barrel and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge" is absurd. The barrel cannot possibly bend, or the ammo could not be fired! 3) "and twist at a hinge" i.e. vertically - unsource and frankly implausible claim, that is not supported by the photos nor any citation to published facts. This "twist" claim was not actually removed, simply commented out with a note that it was too implausible without citation to more evidence. 4) Which end is what is now clearer. 5) Ludicrous claim that bayonets are a solely 1700s technology removed. 6) Now says where the hinge is in relation to other parts of the gun. 7) Informal language cleaned up, and made clearer/more specific (and grammatical as to plurality): "on the other side .. there is the..." -> "on the butt side ... are the..." 8) Clarified that the camera is digital (this is a significant fact; an optical system would be rather complicated and require mirrors; some SWAT equipment DOES in fact use purely optical systems to look around corners, so this point isn't silly or trivial) 9) Made closing phrase less repetitive and easier to read ("camera ... and ... camera and" is hard to parse).
— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib] ツ 07:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added Template:Unverifiedimage tags on images used here. They are all mislabeled as Template:web-screenshot. Please add the correct image license tag and whether they are fair use or have been released by copyright owner. Thanks. Ytny 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The only thing that seems missing to me is a subsection on, and info about, the "version that can fit existing automatic weapons such as the M16", which is mentioned but has a notable absence of deets. Great that a clear pic of the anti-tank model was available. Schweet. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the beef? Get some details and info on the standard edition. We got plenty of features told that is for all the weapons, but I'm sure there's one on the standard that isn't on all the weapons. Gang sta EB ( sliding logs~ dive logs) 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references. Tarret 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, I find the 4-in-one pic to be not very useful - I don't think people should have to click on a photo to make it out, and even clicking on this one doesn't make it big enough to see any real detail. Also I liked the layout much better with the separate pics. It made the article look very "robust". If the four-in-one is kept, it should be replaced with a big version at least 100% larger than the current one. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The four pics sorta had a fair use problem since their was cramming. I hated taking out the original 4. GangstaEB~( penguin logs) 02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but its not as likely to bring up one because their was 2 many pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.245.28 ( talk • contribs)
I was surprised there was no mention of recoil. Ordinarily a weapon's recoil if focused at the operators shoulder. This gun sends most of it's energy perpendicular to the standard, doesn't that make it possible and or likely that the gun will be 'knocked' to the side after each shot? Even for a strong person this kind of leverage would be very difficult. Vicarious 07:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Krummlauf Attachment, which was the German attempt to do exactly the same thing during WW II, using the technology of the day. KTo288 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
it's not designed to take on tanks, so why would it be under that catagory?
I guess terrorists hide behind corners, but still...
I noticed it had there under "Wars" that it has been used it. I didn't think this was appropriate as I haven't seen the War on Crime or the War on Drugs listed in this way, and that's the sense of the word in question. I had a look around the article on the 'War on Terror' and didn't see anything to the contrary so I've removed the reference here. Gregory j 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You clearly don't watch FutureWeapons, this gun was designed for use in urban combat by israel and has since been sold to the U.S. 69.140.35.147 ( talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. At first glance, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. There may be more problems but these are the most obvious.
There are other problems, but these are the most glaring issues. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Should a popular culture reference be added here linking to its usage in the movie Wanted_(film)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampus ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget when Mythbusters used it because of Wanted 69.140.35.147 ( talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence in Overview is fragmented; "Its designers were two former Israeli Army senior officers Amos Golan, with sponsorship by American investors." We have two designers, and then we only have one listed in a manner that suggests after the comma the other name will come up. Amos Golan does not strike one as two people.
Y'all might want to include that the Mexican Special Forces, I think, are using the Israeli-made Cornershot with Glock attachment. Seen here: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm191/Moyocoyatzin/6e680b87007da94800yt2.jpg
Brody Kennen ( talk) 08:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If we end up with an "In popular culture" section again, a CornerShot was used (just this week) in The Last Ship, season 2, episode 4, starting at about 00:20:57 into the show (not counting commercial breaks). This may well be the first glimpse most viewers have had of the CornerShot. In the show, it's in the possession of a highly trained unit of mercenaries, British, Spanish, etc. Not much has been revealed about them as of yet in the show, and it's unclear if the CornerShot reappear.
We should probably come up with other cases, and please write it as a prose paragraph, not a list of trivia. Such sections are not necessarily trivial if they're written well. The aforementioned use of the CornerShot in Wanted leading directly to Mythbusters devoting time to it is a case in point; it's a mainstream secondary source responding, with detailed coverage, to the public reaction (mostly with disbelief) to the film usage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on CornerShot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)