Template:Did you know nominations/Powder flask
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Powder flask
[edit]
- ... that whatever they do on You Tube, you should never load a muzzle-loading gun directly from a powder flask (Indian ivory example illustrated) or horn?
Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nominated at 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC).
- (Comment by nominator) The You Tube bit I think falls short of an assertion. In the article it is referenced only by two example You Tube videos (how not to do it, kids). There seems to a be a correlation with not wearing a shirt when making your video and this practice. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The hook is interesting, and I think ties in well with the warning presented in reliable sources. I'm willing to AGF verifiability concerns on the basis of your content creation. However, some claims here are not clearly verified to me based on the sources present, namely:
- Under "Use":
Although forms of pre-packed cartridges go back to the Middle Ages,[citation needed] these were for several centuries made up by the shooter or a servant, requiring a container for the gunpowder which came loose.[citation needed]
The powder flask was finally rendered obsolete by the spread of breech-loading guns and the innovations brought about by Hall, Sharps, Spencer and...
- Under "Decoration"
Most of the vast numbers of flasks made in the gun-using parts of the world during the Early Modern period were probably relatively plain and functional, and have not been preserved.
- "Probably"-- according to whom?
- Under "Use":
- I'll keep an eye on the article for any relevant changes. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the specific comments on the passages you quote aren't really DYK issues, & I suggest you move them to the article talk page. I have done the first so far, but as I left working off on the article a month ago, my memory of the many sources used is not great. Equally you haven't adressed several basic DYK criteria like length, newness etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Given that I can't personally verify most of the text (and therefore can't check for copvio or close paraphrasing), I didn't think it was too much to ask you to verify a few claims that are not clearly cited. But, given that these aren't central to the hook, maybe I am asking for too much. As for the rest of the criteria, article was created 18 September 2010; expansion (over 5x) began on 27 July 2013 and finished August 1. Prose is clearly over the 1500 characters. QPQ checks out. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the specific comments on the passages you quote aren't really DYK issues, & I suggest you move them to the article talk page. I have done the first so far, but as I left working off on the article a month ago, my memory of the many sources used is not great. Equally you haven't adressed several basic DYK criteria like length, newness etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
