# Talk:Type 26 revolver

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 26 revolver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll read through properly and carry out a review over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments as per below - am putting on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

"The Type 26 would later be replaced by Japanese semiautomatic pistols in the first half of the 20th century." I'd suggest "The Type 26 was replaced by Japanese semiautomatic pistols in the first half of the 20th century."
Done
"the Type 26 revolver was the first indigenous revolver adopted by Japan" - adopted by who in Japan? (e.g. "adopted by the Japanese military/government/etc.")
Done
"The design is thought to be a mixture of features taken from other revolvers." - You'll need to explain who thinks this, or just go for "The design is probably a mixture..." if its widely believed but still uncertain.
Done
"lock-work" - I'm not sure what this is; any chance of a wikilink or footnote?
Done
"It is considered a remarkable leap in Japanese pistol development despite the internationally derived features with the matchlock being the most common domestic Japanese handgun 40 years earlier." - this sentence seemed odd: is there a comma or something missing?
Done
"Production stopped after 1923 when much of the Koishikawa Arsenal was destroyed in the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake with assembly continuing until the exhaustion of stockpiled parts" - again, punctuation after "earthquake" would help the flow
Done
"Approximately 59,000 Type 26 revolvers were produced with 900 revolvers being made in pre-production." - I'd suggest "were produced, and an additional 900 revolvers were made in pre-production."
Agreed Done
"Prior to the final transfer of small arms production to the Kokura Arsenal," - it's unclear to the reader what or when this happens, as its the first time it's mentioned.
Removed Kokura because of unclear date of moving.
"restoration and re-issue of revolvers that had been removed from service because of damage or wear was carried out on an as needed basis over a period of many years." - unclear how this links to the Kokura Arsenal bit of the sentence.
Done
" The original Type 26s are missing external markings of later produced revolvers and are identifiable by numbers stamped on internal parts." - "the external markings"
Done
"Type 26s were still being used in 1945 which is considered a testament to their original workmanship. The revolver is considered a much more suitable combat weapon than later Japanese produced pistols."  - considered by who?
Done
It's probably worth splitting the paragraph in History into two, given the length and diverse content.
Disagree the information available wouldn't make two acceptable paragraphs
"The Type 26 has an octagonal barrel with a foresight blade bed into while the backsight was incorporated into the top of the frame." - What's a foresight blade bed? I think you mean "which" rather than "while".
Fixed and Altered
"The cylinder stopping" - not sure what this means (e.g. is it a noun or a verb?)
Done
"The cylinder stopping is considered a serious design flaw with the cylinder notching only while the hammer is cocked allowing the cylinder to revolve by being brushed against an object or inertia from a sudden sideways motion" - needs a commo or some sort of punctuation in this sentence.
Done
"This allows an empty or already fired chamber to rotate into position instead of the next shot, a potentially deadly phenomenon during combat." - I'm not sure "deadly" is the right term here, as one would presumably want a revolver to be deadly.
Done
" the steel used can be considered soft compared to Western standards" - considered by who?
Fixed, as the direct hardness is not measured, and many sources have called Imperial Japanese Steel soft, I generalized the sentence.
" Both the Type 26 Revolver and the ammuniton used would later be" - "ammunition used was later..."
Done
" has lead to categorization of its production into five categories" - "lead to the categorization" "production runs", vice just "production"?
Done
" with no duplicate serial numbered examples being known." - I didn't understand this phrase
Split sentence, could help
" but could be because of later modification" - "but this could be"
Done
"1,00 and 58,900." - just to check - do you really mean "1,00"? It seemed an odd number.
Done meant to be 1,000
"and only 325 of these revolvers were possibly produced" - I think you mean "and possibly only 325 of these revolvers were produced"
Done
"and marking of the Nagoya Arsenal indicate" - "and the marking"
Done
"known in Japan as kon" - I'd put kon in italics
Done
"A leather pocket for the cleaning rod is provided" - "was provided"?
Done
"and arsenal inspection markings with year of manufacture" - "with the year"
Done
"Few holsters developed in 1943 have been noted to be all black lacquered hardware" - I think you mean "A few holsters..."
Done
"Holsters produced towards the end of World War II have a last ditch fabric similar to late production Type 94 Nambu pistol holsters with no shoulder straps or pouches for cleaning rods and ammunition" - I'd add a comma after "pistol holsters"
Done
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

A few words to watch, identified above. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ref the infobox. The muzzle velocity needs a reference. I've also realised that the dimensions and weight etc. in the infobox aren't also included in the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Done
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes, although - as noted above - it isn't very clear about who in Japan actually used it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

Tagged. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Relevant and captioned. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all issues. Any other suggestions are welcomed. --Molestash (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)