This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello.
Cannon is the current main collaboration of the
Tzatziki Squad, and some outside eyes may be quite helpful. The article is currently A-Class and is reasonably complete, but suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Thanks in advance.
Keilana|
Parlez ici
22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
SGGH
All I can see at the moment, the content is good, hence the lack of comment on it. Mainly nit-picks really, good article. SGGH speak! 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 680 kg, use 680 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 680 kg.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, good work, everyone!!!! About time for a Nom? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Askari Mark
Just a quick note on one weak area I encountered recently when wikilinking to this page: The use of “cannons” on military aircraft should be brought out more explicitly than a parenthetical pair of examples in the ‘Modern times’ subsection; it would be nice to have an overt subsection to link to. A picture of such a weapon mounted in an aircraft would be a plus. That same ‘Modern times’ paragraph would also benefit from further explanation of how such smaller-calibre weapons came to be called “cannons” (on fighters and tanks), particularly at a time when the term was being less and less used for artillery. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PR comments from EyeSerene
Great article Keilana! Most of what I would have said is covered above, but I do have a few observations:
I think the lead still needs some work as far as summarising the rest of the article goes. A good rule of thumb is that it should be possible to delete the rest of the article and, with just the lead, provide a reader with a good grasp of the article subject. You could get away with expanding it further ;) On the sourcing point, it's not really necessary to provide citations in the lead, because content should be sourced in the main article below where it's covered in more detail (exception: WP:BLP!).
Also from the lead: "A cannon is a type of artillery...that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile over a distance." Using "gunpowder" in the definition is potentially confusing, especially as it's wikilinked to Gunpowder (which is basically black powder). Smokeless variants (eg Cordite) have been in use in cannons since the 18xx's - while technically still 'gunpowder', I think the distinction would be lost on the average lay-reader.
A general copyedit would be useful, mainly to tighten up the prose and clarify the odd awkward sentence and typo. To give a couple of examples, the sentence "The Spanish Kings enlisted "the first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" in the mid-14th century.[24] while hand guns were probably in use at this time, such as against the Mongols, and Italian scopettieri ("gun bearers") were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen in 1281." needs a bit of work, and in 18th and 19th century there is a paragraph starting with "But...".
The wikilinks could be checked over - I don't think it's really necessary to link "music", for example, but a link would be useful for "shrapnel".
I'm not sure the mention of torpedoes (in Middle east) is relevant to the article.
I spotted one or two claims that need explicit citations (for example, "The Tsar Cannon, founded by Russian founding master Andrey Chokhov in 1586, was the largest howitzer ever made.") Also, the first paragraph of Modern times makes a number of factual claims but has no references.
Some of the books listed as references have no ISBN information.
A couple of the external links in the article may need checking: the link URL for "Cannons and Gunpowder" (first 2 refs) doesn't match the address it goes to, and the same for "Artillery through the ages". Click here to check the links.
I enjoyed reading the article - hope this helps ;) All the best, EyeSerene TALK 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo
A nice amount of content and good illustrations overall, though I have some pointers and suggestions:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello.
Cannon is the current main collaboration of the
Tzatziki Squad, and some outside eyes may be quite helpful. The article is currently A-Class and is reasonably complete, but suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Thanks in advance.
Keilana|
Parlez ici
22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
SGGH
All I can see at the moment, the content is good, hence the lack of comment on it. Mainly nit-picks really, good article. SGGH speak! 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 680 kg, use 680 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 680 kg.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, · AndonicO Hail! 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, good work, everyone!!!! About time for a Nom? Justin (Gmail?) (u) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Askari Mark
Just a quick note on one weak area I encountered recently when wikilinking to this page: The use of “cannons” on military aircraft should be brought out more explicitly than a parenthetical pair of examples in the ‘Modern times’ subsection; it would be nice to have an overt subsection to link to. A picture of such a weapon mounted in an aircraft would be a plus. That same ‘Modern times’ paragraph would also benefit from further explanation of how such smaller-calibre weapons came to be called “cannons” (on fighters and tanks), particularly at a time when the term was being less and less used for artillery. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PR comments from EyeSerene
Great article Keilana! Most of what I would have said is covered above, but I do have a few observations:
I think the lead still needs some work as far as summarising the rest of the article goes. A good rule of thumb is that it should be possible to delete the rest of the article and, with just the lead, provide a reader with a good grasp of the article subject. You could get away with expanding it further ;) On the sourcing point, it's not really necessary to provide citations in the lead, because content should be sourced in the main article below where it's covered in more detail (exception: WP:BLP!).
Also from the lead: "A cannon is a type of artillery...that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile over a distance." Using "gunpowder" in the definition is potentially confusing, especially as it's wikilinked to Gunpowder (which is basically black powder). Smokeless variants (eg Cordite) have been in use in cannons since the 18xx's - while technically still 'gunpowder', I think the distinction would be lost on the average lay-reader.
A general copyedit would be useful, mainly to tighten up the prose and clarify the odd awkward sentence and typo. To give a couple of examples, the sentence "The Spanish Kings enlisted "the first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" in the mid-14th century.[24] while hand guns were probably in use at this time, such as against the Mongols, and Italian scopettieri ("gun bearers") were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen in 1281." needs a bit of work, and in 18th and 19th century there is a paragraph starting with "But...".
The wikilinks could be checked over - I don't think it's really necessary to link "music", for example, but a link would be useful for "shrapnel".
I'm not sure the mention of torpedoes (in Middle east) is relevant to the article.
I spotted one or two claims that need explicit citations (for example, "The Tsar Cannon, founded by Russian founding master Andrey Chokhov in 1586, was the largest howitzer ever made.") Also, the first paragraph of Modern times makes a number of factual claims but has no references.
Some of the books listed as references have no ISBN information.
A couple of the external links in the article may need checking: the link URL for "Cannons and Gunpowder" (first 2 refs) doesn't match the address it goes to, and the same for "Artillery through the ages". Click here to check the links.
I enjoyed reading the article - hope this helps ;) All the best, EyeSerene TALK 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo
A nice amount of content and good illustrations overall, though I have some pointers and suggestions: