Huolongjing has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This   level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles China: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance). Military history: Asian / Chinese This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rocketry Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

I just cut-and-pasted the majority of information from the Jiao Yu article into this one, since all of this information in Jiao Yu's article was off-topic.-- PericlesofAthens 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I really hate to do this to an article that shows so very much outstanding work. However, my problem is the WP:LEDE, which currently does not serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. The main problem is that there is a large amount of historical information in the article, the main points of which need to be given a top-level summary. I actually think it will be tricky and perhaps time-consuming to do this in only a few sentences.

I also found the long list of weapons offered in the current lede to be distracting. It will also be tricky to rewrite that information in an interesting way... I suggest mentioning each of the subsections of the article "...firearms and flamethrowers including (notable example), bombards and cannons including (notable example), land mines and naval mines, gunpowder and explosives including (notable example) and fire arrows and rockets.."

This article will need polishing before WP:FAC. Aside from my qualms with the lede, however, it is currently well above the quality level needed for GA. Good work! Ling.Nut 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, the chinse word doesn't correspond to the english romanization word for word. Blueshirts 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Can you be specific about which particular words? I can check on them. -- lk 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There's a lot of good information here, but it doesn't really belong in this article. I think the article should keep to describing the book and its historical circumstance. In particular, much of the material in 'Historical perspective', about events hundreds of years later, is off-topic. Perhaps a fork to another article about firearms in China? -- lk 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• I found 火龍經 translated as "Fire Drake Manual" and corrected it to "Fire Dragon Manual".

User:PericlesofAthens reverted it "Dude, you can't just go around changing the titles of books; unless you have a scholarly source that uses a different name than Needham, it will be drake, not dragon, sorry..". But the title of the original Chinese book was 火龍經, not anything written in English. And 龍 means "dragon", not the modern meaning of "drake". Perhaps its translator used "drake" in an obsolete sense, like Tolkien did once. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

There is nothing incorrect at all about "Fire Drake Manual," drake is simply an archaic term for dragon. The difference between the two is merely a matter of style. Aas217 ( talk) 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. A couple of improvements are suggested below.

• The second paragraph of the lead is overly detailed and overly sourced. I suggest cutting it down and removing the sources to improve readability. All the information is a repeated and sourced further down the article anyway.
• There is an external link that shouldn't be there and the article needs its links checking again, several technical words that should be linked (like matchlock) are not.

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 ( talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have taken your advice to heart by deleting all the lead section's citations (except for three that did not appear elsewhere with material that was not covered elsewhere) and linking matchlock where it was not linked and should have been, since the only time its link appeared elsewhere was in the lead.-- Pericles of Athens ^Talk 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That drawing displays a formation from, at the earliest, the 1500s, more likely the 1600s. This book was written in the 1300s. It's a bit misleading. Gunslinger1812 ( talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been trying to find a copy of the actual text (either the original Chinese or an English translation) without any luck. I think having a link to a public domain work like this (or possibly hosting it on wikimedia commons) would improve the article significantly. Is anyone willing to track down a copy? Eoseth ( talk) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I recently came across this Taiwanese website with a transcription in Traditional Chinese. I checked 4 entries to the pictures used in this article, and they are exactly the same as far as I can tell. http://www.cos.url.tw/book/6/O-1-053.htm Zhonghua88 ( talk) 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

From "Historical context" per WP:COATRACK:

Although not perfected until the 19th century with the cartridge of Samuel Johannes Pauly in 1809, Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse's ' Needle Gun' in 1836, and the steel–cast Krupp cannon in the 1850s, the history of the European breech–loading gun spans back to the late 14th century, the earliest models found in Burgundy. ^[1] Before the improvements by those mentioned above, these early breech loading rifles and cannons were somewhat unsatisfactory due to serious loss of gas when firing, resulting in the decreased force of the propellant. ^[2]

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 22:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) reply

What do those look like? Should their be a different article on ottoman warfare, or a section on that, if one already exists?

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Barbarian attacking cannon.jpg
• Explosive thunder bomb.jpg
• Fire brick.jpg
• HLJ bomb.jpg
• HLJ bombs.jpg
• Huolongjing Eruptor.jpg
• Huolongjing bomb.jpg
• Lance shield.jpg
• Land mine HLJ.jpg
• Lotus bunch.jpg
• Manual Fire Arrow.jpg
• Ming coviatice gun.jpg
• Oldest depiction of rocket arrows.jpg
• Organ gun.jpg
• Poison eruptor.jpg
• Seven barreled organ gun.jpg
• Shell handgun.jpg
• Spurting tube.jpg
• Ten thousand fires.jpg
• Two barreled automatic fire lance from the Huolongjing.jpg
• Watermelon bomb.jpg
• Wheel mine.jpg
• Yaksha lance.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Explosive thunder bomb.jpg
• Lance shield.jpg
• Lotus bunch.jpg
• Oldest depiction of rocket arrows.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The hover tooltip for lachrymatory powder in this article describes it as "gass bomb from call of duty." I would fix it, but I have never made an edit and am unsure how to edit a tooltip. Could someone fix it and enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.78.32.40 ( talk) 18:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply