Talk:Wayne William Howlett

About the rifle
The article (copying the judge's wording) calls the rifle a "7.2 × 39-mm-calibre self-loading rifle". This seems to be an error stating the calibre. not least because there is not a rifle bullet of 7.2mm (or anything like it - see 7 mm caliber for the nearest ones). This story names the specific rifle - it was an SKS, which is chambered in the standard Soviet 7.62×39mm (so either the judge, or the rather ropey transcriber, missed out the 6). Secondly, the article describes this as a "self-loading rifle". While that's not wrong, it's a poor description (that's a wide category of firearms), and it risks confusion with the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle, which was formerly the standard firearm of the Australian Army - so someone reading this might mistake it to mean that Howlett had obtained a former Australian Army gun, rather than a rather elderly ex-Soviet thing. I propose to correctly indentify the rifle model (in line with the source) and to remove some of the technical description of it (which the reader can get, if they care, from the SKS article). The salient points (that it's a semi-automatic weapon in a large calibre, that fired a bunch of rounds which penetrated the metal door) are well sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, no-one has commented, and in the meantime someone else has fixed the calibre issue, so I've made the rest of the changes above. I've also removed the claim that "Attached to the weapon was a magazine, which contained at least 25 cartridges", which is also difficult to understand - the SKS has an internal magazine (which holds 10 rounds), and doesn't take an external magazine. It's sufficient to simply say it was loaded. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

POV in Powerlifting section
The first paragraph seemingly introduces a challenge to the veracity of any claim to powerlifting prominence that is at odds with the sources cited, and introduces an irrelevant, unsourced attack on the subject of the article’s family member. Unless the challenge is supported and the irrelevant material’s inclusion justified, they should be removed. TasmanianCrime (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)