Wikipedia:Peer review/Krag-Petersson/archive2
Krag-Petersson[edit]
I'm resubmitting this article for peer review with an eye to get it up to FA-quailty (and perhaps even FA-status *smiles*). It has previously gone thru a peer review in December 2004 and it was a (failed) FAC in June 2005. I have extensivly rewritten, expanded and referenced the article over the last few days - so in essence it's a completly updated article compared to the one I submited for FAC earlier. I would like to hear any comments y'all might have on this article about one odf the first repeating rifles adopted by an armed force anywhere in the world. I do believe it's close to FA-standards, but inputs are needed for the last polish. Also, if someone with a better grasp of written English could look over it, it is appriciated. WegianWarrior 08:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. About the only thing that would be interesting to add would be a small comparison table with comparable rifles of the period. (The ones you have listed in the "see also" section, for example.) The table could show the rifle weight, typical rates of fire, muzzle velocities, and effective ranges. Hmm, what else? I saw mention of a bayonet for this rifle on one of the web pages. Is there any information on that? — RJH 17:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea with the table - I'll see what I can put together. Same on the bayonet, I'll put in something about that as well. WegianWarrior 22:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- How about now? WegianWarrior 08:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it looks good. Thanks. — RJH 22:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'd prefer it if the lead size is doubled. Its too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Lead expanded, anythign else you see that could be improved? WegianWarrior 08:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- ya, have a few minor suggestions. 1) Split the lead into two to make it easier to read. 2) Your notes after #11 don't work. Since all the footnotes come from the same source, I strongly suggest you use the {{inote}} instead. eg {{inote|Ibid., page 26, left|Ibid-1}}. There are four unique references mentioned in the =Notes= which should be included under the =reference= . Only the enfilading topic qualifies as a true footnote. =Notes= should come before references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Lead split into two paragraphs, fixed broken notes, shifted references to be after notes. Sticking to the {{ref|<note>}} and {{note|<note>}}, at least for the time being, since I prefer that style personally. Besides, it's been recommended to me on earlier artilces I've nominated for FA. WegianWarrior 18:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- ya, have a few minor suggestions. 1) Split the lead into two to make it easier to read. 2) Your notes after #11 don't work. Since all the footnotes come from the same source, I strongly suggest you use the {{inote}} instead. eg {{inote|Ibid., page 26, left|Ibid-1}}. There are four unique references mentioned in the =Notes= which should be included under the =reference= . Only the enfilading topic qualifies as a true footnote. =Notes= should come before references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Lead expanded, anythign else you see that could be improved? WegianWarrior 08:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)