Talk:Lee–Enfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now read through the article a couple of times without doing any checks, etc, on the citations; and my initial conclusions are that the article is generally at or about GA-standard. Having said that there was possibly one, may be two, places where a sentence could be "read" several ways and two abbreviations (MLE and SMLE) seem to be appear a few sections before they are defined.

I'm now doing to go through the article in more detail and check references, etc, and will highlight any "problems". So if I don't comment at this stage on a particular section/subsection that probably means that I regard it as OK; however, I will be doing the WP:Lead at the end of these sections, not first. There will be an Overall summary at the end.

It makes it easier for me if any comments/objections/statements about a particular "action" are placed below that particular action, rather than lumped together elsewhere. Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two projects rated this A-class, somewhat surprisingly. Its certainly quite comprehensive, well referenced and well-illustrated; but it is not without "errors".

Design and history -

A few minor points, but since two projects rated this A-class are somewhat surprising:
- The Lede describes this weapon as "bolt-action", as does the section paragraph of this section; but the first paragraph uses "rear-locking bolt system" and then "The Lee action". Why use "system", when "action" seems more relevant?
- The second paragraph uses the abbreviation "SMLE", but that is not defined for another two sections.
- The third paragraph seems confused. The first paragraph states: "The Lee-Enfield was adapted to fire the .303 British service cartridge, a rimmed, high-powered rifle round"; the second paragraph discusses experiments with cartridges, propellant wear and the need to change the rifling; and the third states the Lee-Enfield was born. Working backwards: the third paragraph suggests the Lee-Enfield was designed (not adapted) after experiments; the second is entirely neutral, Lee-Metford cartridges were used (with smokeless propellent) but the gun used to fire them is unnamed (but see below); the first states the gun was adapted to "fire the .303 British service cartridge, a rimmed, high-powered rifle round", but fails to state what it fired before it was adapted. The article .303 British tells a slightly different story: the Lede states: ".303 British, or 7.7x56mmR, is a .311 inch calibre rifle and machine gun cartridge first developed in Britain as a blackpowder round put into service in December 1888 for the Lee-Metford rifle, later adapted to use cordite and then smokeless powder propellant."
- Can a weapon be "born".?

Magazine Lee-Enfield -

The undefined abbreviation LMC appears here and nowhere else, is it a typo for MLE?

Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk I -

The second paragraph states: "The new rifle also incorporated a charger loading system,[16] another innovation borrowed from the Mauser rifle;[17] ....". Having read thus far, this seems to be the first innovation borrowed from the Mauser rifle, but it clearly states another innovation borrowed from the Mauser rifle, so what was borrowed from the Mauser prior to this one?

Inter-War period -

There is a {{jargon}} flag that needs addressing. Its undated so I can't tell how long it has been there.

Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III , Rifle No 5 Mk I—the "Jungle Carbine" & Production and manufacturers -

I assume that the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, used in the first section, the SAF Lithgow, used in the second and third sections and the undefined abbreviation LSA, used in the third section, are the same facility, but why the inconsistency in naming?

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Service Lee-Enfields: Commando and Automatic models -
- Charlton Automatic Rifles -

This subsection states: "Over 1,500 conversions were made, including a handful by the Australian firm Electrolux using Lithgow SMLE Mk III* rifles.[57]", but Electrolux is a Swedish firm or so its article claims.

- Elkins Automatic Rifle -

This has a short unreferenced statement: "The Elkins Automatic Rifle was one of the numerous attempts to convert a Lee-Enfield SMLE to an automatic rifle." and a {{main}} link to an article which is (perhaps) twice as long. Either it needs a citation to make it WP:Verifiable, or these "numerous attempts" aught to be summarised to remove WP:Vagueness.

- Remaining subsections -

All are unreferenced and have a {{main}} link to an article which is (perhaps) twice as long.

Conversion to 7.62x51mm NATO -
- Ishapore 2A/2A1 -

The following statement: "From 1965–1975 (when production is believed to have been discontinued), the sight ranging graduations were changed from 2000 to 800, and the rifle re-designated Rifle 7.62 mm 2A1.[68]" suffers from WP:Vagueness, what is 2000 to 800 (numbers, yards, what?)?
The second half of the second paragraph is unreferenced; and the final paragraph is entirely unreferenced.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final paragraph makes a number of statements of fact, but is entirely unreferenced.

Production and manufacturers -

The statement "plagued with industrial unrest" seems to lack neutrality (see WP:NPOV). Its also not clear how much of this paragraph is verifiable through ref 70: since it appears after ref 69, that seems to indicate that ref 70 is only being used to verify the final sentence.

- Armalon -

This one-sentence paragraph is unreferenced.

The Lee-Enfield in civilian use -

There is a {{Clarification needed}} flag going back to December 2010.

Users -

There are several {{Citation needed}} flags going back to November/December 2010.
A number of the references, 90 to 92 and 98, are raw web links. They aught to be properly cited, such as be using {{cite web}}, but the use of the template itself is not mandatory.

WP:Lead -

Passable, but a minor expansion would not go amiss.

Scope -

Generally quite satisfactory. However, I find it strange that factors such as range and sighting are not discussed in regard to the standard Lee-Enfield (yes they are in the infobox). The most comprehensive discussion is: "From 1965–1975 (when production is believed to have been discontinued), the sight ranging graduations were changed from 2000 to 800, and the rifle re-designated Rifle 7.62 mm 2A1.[68] The original 2,000 yards (1,800 m) rear sight arm was found to be suitable for the ballistics of the 7.62x51 NATO which is around 10% more powerful which equates to a flatter trajectory than that of the .303 British MkVII ammunition, so it was a simple matter to think of the '2000' as representing metres rather than yards. It was then decided that the limit of the effective range was a more realistic proposition at 800 m." and that appears in the Conversion to 7.62x51mm NATO / Ishapore 2A/2A1 subsection.

At this point I'm putting the reivew On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 303

Y Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - So closely was the weapon associated with the British Empire that in the film Breaker Morant, a group of prisoners is said to have been shot "under rule three-oh-three". Apart from the fact that this sentence doesn't make sense, I question whether it belongs in the lede. There is something gratuitous and lip-smacking about it. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, I'll go along with that. The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points. It's not mentioned in the body of the article (and I don't think that it should be), so its not a summary; and its a work of fiction, and unreferenced, so its merely a point of view. Pyrotec (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duly removed. Rumiton (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Generally compliant

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Generally compliant; the WP:Lead is just about passable, but would benefit from some expansion and the use of undefined abbreviations needs to be addresssed.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
In General, most sections are compliant, but there are several unaddressed {{Clarification needed}} flags and {{Jargon}} flags, and some sections are unreferenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Generally compliant; but there is one WP:POV comment, i.e. "plagued with industrial unrest" and the use of undefined abbreviations.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article is not far off being a GA, but I doubt that it is an A-class article.

A few of the "problems" highlighted above have been addressed during this review but most have not. Some I'm closing this review. It would be nice to see this article brought up to GA-class, and A-class; much of the article is, but not all sections. Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]