This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Remington Model 1858 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this page may need to be spell cheaked -- KeraDahlin 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has been expanded and spell checked, 2 July, 2007.
I put finishing touches on my contributions to OVERVIEW, DESIGN and MODERN USE. I also added four references, and noted the reference link in my article contribution. The beginning of the article above OVERVIEW inaccurately states that Confederate gunmakers copied the Remington design. The text included in the photo box also has some inaccuracies concerning the Remington percussion revolvers. I do not know how to change these particular problems. Glnelson1956 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)glnelson1956 Glnelson1956 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
High carbon steel?-- 69.149.222.132 ( talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that articles can't cite "self-published sources" unless the author is an expert in the field who's been previously published. WP:SPS I see two sources in this article that appear to violate that policy:
http://civilwarhandgun.com/remington.htm http://www.nrvoutdoors.com/COLTREM/COLT%20OR%20REMINGTON.htm
Unless someone can point out how these authors are published experts, I'll go ahead and delete the sources and the text which cites them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezin ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
When it rains it pours. These two books appear to be self-published:
"Round Ball to Rimfire, Part 3", Dean S. Thomas, 2003, Chapter 1, "Federal Arsenals", pages 1 through 10
[Published by Thomas Publications, which is owned by Dean Thomas]
"Percussion Pistols and Revolvers", Mike Cumpston and Johnny Bates, 2005, Chapter 23, "Shooting the 1858 Remington Army and Navy Revolvers", ballistics table beginning on page 132
[Published by iUniverse, a vanity press.]
If these authors have been previously published by reputable publishers and are considered experts in this field then they'd qualify for an exemption, if I understand correctly. Rezin ( talk) 19:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If Model 1858 is "Remington-Beals Model Revolver(s)", then what is Remington-Beals 1st Model (5-round percussion cap revolver first available in c.1856) [6] [7] and its successors the 2nd- and 3rd Model(s) supposed to be? From my knowledge Model 1858 is mostly known as the "Army" and/or "Navy" (with a Remington-Rider Double Action sister model)... -- TrickShotFinn ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Remington Model 1858 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
this page may need to be spell cheaked -- KeraDahlin 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has been expanded and spell checked, 2 July, 2007.
I put finishing touches on my contributions to OVERVIEW, DESIGN and MODERN USE. I also added four references, and noted the reference link in my article contribution. The beginning of the article above OVERVIEW inaccurately states that Confederate gunmakers copied the Remington design. The text included in the photo box also has some inaccuracies concerning the Remington percussion revolvers. I do not know how to change these particular problems. Glnelson1956 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)glnelson1956 Glnelson1956 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
High carbon steel?-- 69.149.222.132 ( talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that articles can't cite "self-published sources" unless the author is an expert in the field who's been previously published. WP:SPS I see two sources in this article that appear to violate that policy:
http://civilwarhandgun.com/remington.htm http://www.nrvoutdoors.com/COLTREM/COLT%20OR%20REMINGTON.htm
Unless someone can point out how these authors are published experts, I'll go ahead and delete the sources and the text which cites them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezin ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
When it rains it pours. These two books appear to be self-published:
"Round Ball to Rimfire, Part 3", Dean S. Thomas, 2003, Chapter 1, "Federal Arsenals", pages 1 through 10
[Published by Thomas Publications, which is owned by Dean Thomas]
"Percussion Pistols and Revolvers", Mike Cumpston and Johnny Bates, 2005, Chapter 23, "Shooting the 1858 Remington Army and Navy Revolvers", ballistics table beginning on page 132
[Published by iUniverse, a vanity press.]
If these authors have been previously published by reputable publishers and are considered experts in this field then they'd qualify for an exemption, if I understand correctly. Rezin ( talk) 19:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If Model 1858 is "Remington-Beals Model Revolver(s)", then what is Remington-Beals 1st Model (5-round percussion cap revolver first available in c.1856) [6] [7] and its successors the 2nd- and 3rd Model(s) supposed to be? From my knowledge Model 1858 is mostly known as the "Army" and/or "Navy" (with a Remington-Rider Double Action sister model)... -- TrickShotFinn ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)