Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cannon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Cannon

[edit]

Nominators:
AndonicO
Grimhelm
Keilana
Bibliomaniac15
Anonymous Dissident
J-stan

This article has been the Tzatziki Squad collaboration for awhile, and it's finally ready for FAC. It's had a peer review, been thoroughly copyedited and referenced, and is quite comprehensive. (If any of you others want to put your 2¢ in, please do.) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you cannon. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes and support. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure whether to add my name to the nominators or support (didn't know about articlestats before - seems I have the second most edits). I expanded a bit on Vauban though. I also extend my commendations to AndonicO for his sterling work to this article. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite nicely written, but I have a few concerns with its present form:

  • While the general list of references is decent—if a bit lacking in works on artillery specifically—the actual citations are somewhat less serious than I would have expected. For a topic on which so many academic works have been written, the heavy reliance on dictionaries and non-scholarly websites seems surprising, to say the least.
  • Focusing on the "Early modern period" section in particular:
    • The text seems to wander around somewhat haphazardly. The lack of chronological order in the points mentioned adds to the confusion—we jump back and forth from late 16th-century Russian sieges, to late 15th-century wheeled carriages, to mid-17th-century Swedish tactics, and back to early 16th-century Italian fortifications. This also introduces some potential points of confusion; for example, explosive shells predate the invention of the mortar, canister/case shot was available long before Gustavus Adolphus used it, and so forth.
    • More generally, there seems to be a certain lack of focus on the most salient points. The move from siege weapons to field artillery is glossed over; Machiavelli is an inadequate source, and Flodden is more suited to be a secondary example than as the only mention of an engagement involving artillery. Similarly, the development of fortifications to deal with cannon is devoid of historical detail; there's a great deal that can be said here beyond the single mention of Vauban.
    • Field artillery is generally forgotten in favor of naval artillery; there's little mention of any developments—or, indeed, of what cannons were actually used for on the battlefield—until we get to the middle of the 19th century.

In general, I would say that there's a dearth of core details—names, dates, places—and an over-use of examples detached from the main point; but perhaps I was just expecting a meatier article, and this is suitable for an introduction. Kirill 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm working a bit on Early modern period now. For the moment, I've removed the Vauban information, as it was unsourced, and repeated what was already mentioned. I'll try to find something with more details from G-books, to expand on what was already said. The points of confusion you mention, however, are stated as you say, and I don't think they're confusing... It says the Dutch "learned to shoot bombs filled with powder," not that they used them for the first time; the same with Adolphus: he "pioneered the use of canister shot against infantry," rather than invented it.
  • Does the wording for siege engines read less "glossy" now? I'll try to find something to support Machiavelli a bit later, as well as another example other than Flodden, and a documentation on a battle involving light cannon in the 16th/17th century.
  • Further, I think the "Artillery Through the Ages" book contains more info (I think I remember reading it, at least) about this period; I'll take a second look later today, and add anything useful.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review. · AndonicO Hail! 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that flows quite a bit better, I think. As far as some other points:
  • I'd strongly recommend Bert Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics as a source for that portion of the article.
  • The trace italienne is not a specific type of star fort, nor identified particularly by having batteries; rather, it's the original name for the style of fortification that reached its height with the star fort.
Kirill 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to find that book. I've removed the mention of the trace italienne. I'm adding a bit more on Adolphus now, I'll get around to re-adding Vauban and finding a few appropriate battles to add details of tomorrow. · AndonicO Hail! 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some possibilities for battles:
  • Cerignola (1503) and Ravenna (1512) are decent early examples of artillery being used in defensive and offensive roles, respectively. Post-Ravenna, field artillery is pretty much used in standard ways until Adolphus & Co. come up with horse artillery. It may also be useful to discuss grapeshot, Napoleonic artillery, and so forth, but that'd be a bit later.
  • Padua (1509) is a good example for the development of new fortifications to withstand cannon, if you need one; but there's relatively little information on it that's easily found.
(These are just suggestions, incidentally, and likely colored by my own area of interest; so please feel free to ignore them if you find something more suitable to use.) Kirill 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestions are appreciated, unfortunately, it's late, and I've been editing for a few hours straight, so I think I'll turn in for now. I'll take a look at that tomorrow, and add it in where appropriate (also found the Battle of Breitenfeld, which might deserve a mention). Thanks again for your input, it's been very helpful. · AndonicO Hail! 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some material on Vauban with references. We could also stand to have some more mention of gabions - they were a feature of cannon warfare in the Early Modern Europe. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Some of the references are a little strange. Refs, 6 and 94 direct to Google and Amazon respectively. Refs 25, 27, 59 don't give the name of the publisher. Some of the books have ISBN numbers, other do not and shouldn't there be a p. before the page numbers? These points may have been covered above. In order to keep an open mind, I tend not to read other reviews at FAC before adding my two pennies worth.--GrahamColmTalk 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have made some changes to the article, [2] and I'm prepared to support the nomination subject to the problems with the references being solved.--GrahamColmTalk 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 6 and 94, done. 25 had the publisher, but it wasn't displaying due to a formatting error. For #27, I've added publisher, year, and location. I added publisher, year, and ISBN for #59, and inserted "p." before page numbers. I'll look for ISBN numbers now. · AndonicO Hail! 18:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been watching you working. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<comments about browser problem moved to talk> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cannon&oldid=1140114245"