Talk:M1857 12-pounder Napoleon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 14:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• There's a deprecated tag at File:CW Arty M1857 Napoleon front.jpg that needs fixing.

   Done

  Better, but you need to add the photographer and project info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done I don't know what I'm doing. I just copied some stuff from another photo taken by the same person, probably on the same day.

  Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Link smoothbore, muzzle-loading and elevation

   Done for the first two. The Wikipedia definition of elevation refers only to the height above a reference. The 5° elevation referred to in the article is a "step up", which is the other dictionary definition of elevation. (Elevation: 1. Height above a given level, especially sea level, 2. the action or fact of elevating or being elevated.)

  I was thinking of elevation--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done Link added.

• You split the production data between the background and production sections. Consolidate them in the latter.

   Done I split Background, paragraph 2 and moved the second part to the Production section. I left the first rejected prototype and the first four accepted prototypes under Background.

• The name of the builders in the second para of the Confederate section is a surprise. Detail them in preceding para, preferably with order quantities if available.

   Done I added Union and Confederate subheaders under Production. I moved Confederate, paragraph 2 below the table and added the first order. Interestingly, the Hazlett et al source gave different numbers for Confederate production.

• link "end of the knob" to cascabel

   Done

• You've got some problems with close proximity of digits, mainly quantities next to designations. Just be consistent within the same paragraph on how you handle this.

   Undone I understand that "45 3.8-inch James rifles, 34 3-inch Ordnance rifles, and 32 10-pounder Parrott rifles" can be awkward to read, but what is the alternative? If there is a specific example or paragraph where I've been inconsistent, please point it out. Thanks.

  The alternative is to spell out the quantities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done Please check if I've done this the way you want. (44 3.8-inch > forty-four 3.8-inch) I'm not sure.

  Looks fine--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• losses 2 killed "of"

   Done See next bullet. This item was removed.

• You have several examples of artillery units in action, but I'm not sure that they really add anything to the article. The example at the Battle of Resaca is the worst offender, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done I eliminated the following sentences: (1) Resaca. (2) "A Union shell blew up one of its caissons and it sustained losses 2 killed, 10 wounded, and 2 missing. Miller's battery conducted an admirable defense of the Confederate center." (3) "[Campbell's] suffered losses of 9 killed and 31 wounded." (4) "While in position, Campbell's battery broke up Confederate attacks and, in addition to casualties, lost 27 horses killed." Other History data was left in the article because I thought it pertinent to the use and capabilities of the gun (i.e. fired triple canister, fired with double propellant without bursting, mix of guns in battery, number of guns in theater, etc.).

  The bit about Battery B being forced to withdraw isn't relevant, IMO, but the bit about the volunteer double-charging the guns definitely is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done I removed some unneeded detail from that incident.

  Oh double damn! I just had an edit conflict that blew up all my edits. GRRR. Djmaschek (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think I managed to save it. Djmaschek (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Sturmvogel 66: Please check what I've done. See above. Thanks.

  Forgot to sign my name to the line above. Djmaschek (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)