Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36

message: Can we call the sources for this article valid? Most come from tank enthusiast websites, from which the figures come from. It would be much more reassuring if we could have some technical documents from which the data originates. AllStarZ (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity of sources

message: The paragraph from performance seems to be a bit subjective. Shouldn't it be written in a neutral tone?  MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "renowned" doesn't exactly fit a neutral tone. I suggest removing it from the first paragraph of Design. The second paragraph also goes a bit off topic and should probably be trimmed a bit. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: Seeing that nobody reads this talk page or bothers to do anything to improve this article's subjective tone, I took it upon myself. I'll start editing right away using the rules from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. As expected, the word "renown" is not fitting here. It is puffery. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text: If several independant sourcess calls it "renowned", wikipedia will do that as well as it is fully possible the gun indeed had a widely spread reputation among friend and foe alike. BP OMowe (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance

message: Concerning the general tone of this article: as a reader, would call it laudatory; as a game designer trying to use Wikipedia for a quick check or lookup, I would call it adulatory. What sparse factual information is present is not supported by reference to reliable and authoritative sources—and I'm sorry, but Jentz is only one source, and his book is not a technical study of armaments; it is therefore a secondary source in respect of the 8,8cm Kampfwagenkanon Modell 1936—the 8.8cm KwK 36.
Please don't get crazily defensive. I am not tarnishing Jentz, I am merely pointing out that his volumes deal with the Tiger tank and it's tactical employment. While information about the AFVs the 8.8cm KwK 36 was deployed in is certainly topical, it is not the primary subject matter. Also, Jentz is not a primary source in any respect, nor is it authoritative for the subject matter of this page, the 8.8cm KwK 36.
Which brings me to my second point—this page is very much representative of why Wikipedia is unreliable, and even where on expects it to be useful, so often disappointing. One could be excused leaving this page believing the 8.8cm KwK36 was the best tank main gun ever fielded by any nation at any time. And because so much space is given to lauding the principle armoured fighting vehicle to which the 8.8cm KwK36 was fitted—the Tiger ausf E—one could be forgiven believing it to be some sort of super-tank; a WWII equivalent of the M1A1 MBT of US Army propaganda (or public relations, if you prefer).
Instead of spending so much space arguing over "accuracy tables", it would be of more benefit to the reader to strip this article of its superfluous content—including "accuracy tables"—and backfill it with accurate, balanced, and useful information on the actual subject, the 8.8cm KwK 36.
For example: if, in fact, the 8.8cm KwK 36 is unrelated to the 8,8cm Flugabwehrkanon Modell 1936—the 8.8cm Flak 36—then a primary source directly supporting this contention must be sited, or balanced viewpoints must be presented, because the weight of existing professional research is against this assertion, making the idea that the 8.8cm KwK 36 is a "parallel design" original research.
I recognise that Wikipedia has no subject matter experts in the professional sense—a vetted, published, and recognised authority on a subject. But when the information in an article is so egregiously biased as this one, one would hope the user community could act more effectively than to debate the merits of one or two columns in the highly questionable, entirely secondary, "accuracy tables"—tables which, in professional documents, would be considered so unreliable as to be worthless.
Frankly, this article is useless even for a Wikipedia entry. Not even simple facts can be checked up. Nothing in the article is reliable; if I didn't know it, I would be suspect that the 8.8cm KwK 36 was even fitted to the Tiger ausf E.
Ranya (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone would object to you adding more contents or finding better sources. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is incredibly one-dimensional. I came here looking for details about this weapon's dimensions and all I can find is muzzle velocity/armour penetration/range stuff. Does anyone have anything about installation weights, length including the breach, etc.? It seems amazing that this was not included. Flanker235 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments on this Article 

message: So, as a thought, maybe this article could be an encyclopaedic entry on the German Krupp Kwk 36. Still.
Forgot to sign my talk.
Ranya (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gun is the Subject