Talk:Cannon operation

message: I'm failing this because for one thing, it's not broad. It wanders off its focus, doesn't cover things it either should or promises it will, and has one section without citations. 
I'll go into more depth about these issues later. Daniel Case 07:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failure

message: I have been asked, after the failure and critique above, to provide further review on the article now that many of the changes I suggested have been made.
It's better but of course still needs some work. It is now more explicitly about cannon operation. However:
*it is still missing some references (I will tag as appropriate in the article).
*The overview section should be more general that it took a crew of men to do it and not take the 1771 Britannica as anything more than a particular example from that period in time. It should say that it was necessary to have separate soldiers do separate things.Also, the Britannica description seems to suggest it took four artillery officers per cannon, but then the more detailed description just below mentions only one officer needed. Were there perhaps four officers needed per unit? It would be good if we knew how big a typical artillery unit was. (Did it have any members whose job was purely focused on transporting the cannon (i.e., feeding the horses etc.)Generalizing more would allow the detailed 18th-century stuff to go down below where it belongs rather than referring the reader back up to something they've already read.
*I'd like to read a bit about modern cannon operation, as I said, if there's anything significantly different there. Especially since usually just a charge is fired without a projectile. Daniel Case 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further review

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Many of my concerns echo the previous article reviewer's above. Here are some of my thoughts going through the article.
#"Overview": "lantern and ladle"? The section below describes them as the same thing. 
#If these sections are quoted directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica, that needs to be made clearer somehow (block quotes, I'd suggest).  I had to re-read it a couple times to figure that out.
#Maybe move a few of the basic projectiles from List of cannon projectiles with a See Also link above it.
#"Cannon Instruments": Again with the quoting. While "spark of fire" is a neat turn of phrase, I doubt that Wikipedians wrote it.
#"History": This entire section seems very Euro-centric. I noticed that the sidebar has a Korean cannon article, but this article makes no mention of it.
#"History": The section starts to wander off into cannon construction, it seems to me.
#Per above, the article makes little mention of naval cannon operation or modern cannon operation.
Better than last time, but needs some more work. Keep going, you'll get there! shoy 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: The diagram of the cannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cannon_diagram.svg is misleading. Cannons point almost horizontally, maybe 10' up from the vertical for a long range shot. A weapon to fire at higher angles like in the diagram would be a howitzer and one that fires more vertically than horizontally would be a mortar. -OOPSIE- (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannon diagram 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cannon operation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516191537/http://www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavycarronade.htm to http://www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavycarronade.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cannon operation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724173345/http://maryrose.org/life/life1.htm to http://www.maryrose.org/life/life1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion