Talk:Forensic firearm examination

Serial number pic
I thought the serial number picture was a tad unclear, I glanced through firearm photos on the commons and found this, what do you think (compared to current)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 June 2016‎(UTC)

Merger proposal
Recently the Ballistic fingerprinting article was changed to a redirect to this article, with this edit summary: "Redirecting to new expanded article that encompasses entire forensic firearm examination process. All information from this article has been incorporated into there." That might be a good idea, but it should be discussed first. So, I am putting the "Ballistic fingerprinting" article back for now, and creating this talk page section for the discussion. Do other editors think that "Ballistic fingerprinting" should be a redirect to this article, and that there is no more useful content there to merge into this article? Why or why not? Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for just doing that. I honestly didn't think this would be controversial. This topic was next on my list of forensic articles to expand up to GA status. While I was rewriting the article I also expanded it so "ballistic fingerprinting" no longer really applied as the topic title. Ballistics is not really the correct term anyways as that has to do with the projectile's flight path and very little to do with the actual analysis of the gun, bullet, or cartridge. So instead of just writing it in place and replacing the current article, I thought that I would merge would I could and redirect. I believe I got everything from the old article but if you feel like I missed something please let me know. The discussion may be a little moot at this point since the merge is done (I did not copy and paste anything so attribution would not be required). There is just a few little things to take care of and then I plan on nominating this for GA status. Let me know if you have any concerns. --Majora (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'd like more time to study the question of whether to leave the "Ballistic fingerprinting" article in place -- if yes, I'd be open to renaming it -- or changing it into a redirect.  In the meantime, perhaps other editors will have an opinion on that. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Leaving both articles up in the end would probably be a bad idea since they cover the same things and would be duplicates of each other (one start class and one B-class/soon to be GA class). Renaming ballistic fingerprinting into what the topic of that page actually covers would not solve the problem of content duplication. You can leave this open but I don't think they will accept my GA nomination while it is ongoing so eventually, regardless if more people actually voice their opinion on it, something does have to happen with the other article. You obviously know my views on what I think should happen. --Majora (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since your idea would have the effect of deleting the "Ballistic fingerprinting" article, the merge proposal tags should stay on both articles for at least a week, and quite possibly several weeks, to give other editors a chance to weigh in on that proposal. There's no rush, and it's better to err on the side of caution.  With that being said, if the tags were still there when someone actually accepted a request to do a GA review -- and I believe there's somewhat of a backlog for that, once you submit the request -- then we would most likely want to take the tags off, one way or another. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It really is not like deleting at all. All of the history is still there, in tact. It is improving an article to GA status. Which is what we are here to do. Improve the quality of our articles. The article was already merged. Leave the moot merge tag on for as long as you want. This is just a little ridiculous that you are fighting to maintain a start class article over a GA worthy article that covers the same topic and already contains the same material. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First the "Ballistic fingerprinting" article would be there, and then it would not be there, but would instead redirect to this article -- and that's not like deleting it at all? I guess I don't look at it quite that way.  But, we seem to be in agreement that the tags can be left up for some time, so let's do that, and see if anyone else chimes in here.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And how long do you plan on keeping this unnecessary merge discussion open? "Some time" is really not descriptive enough. "Some time" to me is a week per WP:MERGECLOSE. You also might want to cross-post somewhere else. The probability that anyone else would comment on this is low in it of itself considering the low traffic these articles generally get. --Majora (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This previous post of mine talked about how long to leave the merge proposal tags. As for cross-posting this, that's probably a good idea.  (If either of us does cross-post, we could post here about where we did it.) — Mudwater (Talk) 23:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objections to closing this? Also, apologies for the way I acted above. I should have discussed it first before just going ahead and doing it. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, they're appreciated. The discussion has now been open for three weeks, and no one has objected to the idea of redirecting the other article to this one. So I think it's okay to go ahead and change the other article to a redirect, and take down the merge proposal tags. (But let's not mark this thread closed -- it's possible that other editors might still want to give their opinions either way.) — Mudwater (Talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've gone ahead and done those things, and also added a "copied" box to this talk page. So I think we're all set.  Thanks again. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I walk away from my computer for a little bit and see that it is all done. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions by User:No394587398539845
The following was suggested as invisible comments by User:No394587398539845. For clarity purposes and as a way to keep the actual source of the article clutter free I have moved them here with notations as to where they were originally. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Use of x can y is excessive throughout article. Consider revising where possible to add interest and flow
 * Suggested changes for above paragraph: 1) 'linking bullets and cartridges to weapons and weapons to individuals' consider rewording to specify intent here. A bullet/cartridge can be linked back to THE weapon it came from, not just a make or lot of weapons 2) 'Obliterated serial numbers can be raised' this is odd as is, since it seems to go against the meaning of the word 'obliterate'. Suggest adding 'seemingly obliterated' and give more detail into what raising entails here (or use different word than raised, such as 'recovered' or 'may be recovered through extensive means (and link to section about this). 3) Use of 'the weapon' throughout: consider use of 'a weapon' for generality 4) 'searched' to 'processed' to avoid passive wording
 * After first paragraph in lead.
 * Suggested changes for above paragraph:  1) do not think striation explanation is necessary, however consider adding something akin to 'unique striations 2) Consider rewording 1st sentence to some structure that first explains how striations are made and then that they may be examined. Current sentence has odd mix of tense and potential read as oddly modified (also suggest use of 'weapon's barrel' or something similar in non-specific instances) 3) Change instances of 'the' to 'a' (and for entirety of article where relevant) 4) Use of 'exemplar': consider change to 'sample' 5) I don't care for the insertion of 'Furthermore', but there needs to either be division or unification of thoughts there. Previously, joined thoughts were too dissimilar as presented and too lengthy
 * After second paragraph in lead.
 * Suggested changes for above paragraph: 1) Just because the mold is found in a house doesn't mean he made it. No suggestion 2)Take path of least words and most clarity where possible (throughout article)
 * After first paragraph in history.
 * Suggested changes for above paragraph: 1)Generally want to avoid using it as in 'it was shown' since this creates an odd, passive tone. 2) 'Simultaneous comparison...at the same time' is redundant. Consider rewording for clarity and wordiness in general.
 * After second paragraph in history.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Forensic firearm examination. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic_files
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2000/index.htm/schehl1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170112213013/https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf to https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

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) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)