Talk:English cannon/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:English cannon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, I am far from sure exactly what this article is intended to do. Is it an account of the use or cannon in England (and if so, is that just England, or all of Britain?) or is it more general, covering use, development and impact. At the moment it does a bit of each but doesn't really cover any in detail. It also finishes in the early nineteenth century without covering any later developments and largely ignores the importance of cannon to the Royal Navy, which is perhaps the most significant thing of all. I really don't believe this is comprehensive.
 * Most of the inline citations are improperly formatted. See below for the correct way to format web citations and please give a page number for each of the book citations.
 * There are a number of citations missing, I have indicated where these should go (as a bare minimum) with tags, please address them.

Response
I hope the sourcing issues are fixed - I, however, am waiting for Grinhelm to provide page numbers (though technically not necessary for a GA, in my opinion, they're useful). About your point on scope, I'm frankly unsure; Grinhelm would know. I've dropped a message on his talk page. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have decided to pass this article, but I do still have reservations about it and I expect that it will come up before a formal GA reassessment at some point to address the comprehensiveness issues that I raised above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)