Talk:English cannon/GA1

GA Reassessment

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. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

First off, I am far from sure exactly what this article is intended to do. Is it an account of the use or cannon in England (and if so, is that just England, or all of Britain?) or is it more general, covering use, development and impact. At the moment it does a bit of each but doesn't really cover any in detail. It also finishes in the early nineteenth century without covering any later developments and largely ignores the importance of cannon to the Royal Navy, which is perhaps the most significant thing of all. I really don't believe this is comprehensive.
Most of the inline citations are improperly formatted. See below for the correct way to format web citations and please give a page number for each of the book citations.
There are a number of citations missing, I have indicated where these should go (as a bare minimum) with ^{[citation needed]} tags, please address them.

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) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I hope the sourcing issues are fixed - I, however, am waiting for Grinhelm to provide page numbers (though technically not necessary for a GA, in my opinion, they're useful). About your point on scope, I'm frankly unsure; Grinhelm would know. I've dropped a message on his talk page. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to pass this article, but I do still have reservations about it and I expect that it will come up before a formal GA reassessment at some point to address the comprehensiveness issues that I raised above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]