Talk:Firearm propellant

Recent edits
I wish to thank User:PhotogenicScientist for their interest in improving this article, and request they identify applicable WikiProject assessment guidelines to support their assertion that removing half of the article's source citations and replacing fifteen internal links with four unsourced paragraphs constitutes an improvement of the article's class. I have restored the deleted internal links and source citations and requested source citations for the unsourced paragraphs. Thewellman (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While it's true that much of the information I added here doesn't have inline citations, this is not a requirement for article content. Our guidelines on inline citations and citing sources are in accord: Citations are only required for 1) Direct quotations, or 2) Material that is challenged or contentious. Moreover, all the material I added was verifiable at the source articles that I wikilinked to. In just one example, my statement The oldest gun propellant was black powder is fully verifiable at the linked article for black powder, where in the History section it says The first confirmed reference to what can be considered gunpowder in China occurred in the 9th century AD during the Tang dynasty... citing "Lorge, 2008, p.32".
 * Now, if you want to challenge this information, and thus force the duplication of inline citations from other articles into this one, I suppose you could do that. To start with a few examples, though, do you think the following statements are not verifiable, and/or not true?:
 * When a propellant is ignited and begins to combust, the resulting chemical reaction releases the chemical energy stored within.
 * The oldest gun propellant was black powder, a low explosive made from a mixture of sulfur, carbon, and potassium nitrate as an oxidizing agent
 * The performance characteristics of a propellant are greatly influenced by its grain size and shape
 * PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I request that you yourself review the applicable assessment guidelines if you wish to opine on others' individual assessments of article quality. I imagine you'll find the version of the article before your recent edit is in accord with the all Start-level criteria. Heck, I'd dare say that version of the article could even be considered C-class. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, and thank you again for your interest in improving this article. I don't disagree with any of the information you added to this article, and I don't disagree with your assessment of the article's class.  My concern is with the information your edits removed from the article, and your failure to source the information you added.  In response to your suggestion that I review applicable assessment guidelines, I invite your attention to the following:
 * from WikiProject Firearms: Cite as much information as possible. This way the articles will have more credibility. Extraordinary claims require citations from very reliable sources. If you don't want something you have added to be deleted, cite a reliable source, assuming the source supports your statement.
 * from WikiProject Military history criterion for Start class: Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
 * from WikiProject Military history criterion for C class: It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
 * I encourage conformance with these criteria for continued elevation of this article's class. Thewellman (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While you may personally prefer all material to have inline citations, this is not a requirement. If you'd like to add inline citations to material I added, feel more than free.
 * This article indeed has multiple links in it, in accordance with Start-class. As for C-class, that requires only one of these two criteria, one of which you cited: B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations; B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. I'd contend B2 is reasonably satisfied. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist Please stop removing source citations from this article. While source citations are not required for minimum articles, they are essential for improving article quality; and your simplifying edits are counterproductive to my efforts to improve this top importance article. Thewellman (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)