Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Webley Revolver/archive1

Webley Revolver
This particular article has been extensively re-written over the last two months or so (largely by myself), with a lot of additions and illustrations added. I've had it peer reviewed by the folks at WikiProject Military History, and having taken all their suggestions on board and implemented them, I'd like to nominate this article for Featured Article status. Self-Nomination --Commander Zulu 05:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object WP:LEAD section is too small, and there's inconsistant inline referencing, sometimes using the footnote system, other times just linking directly to a web site. Additionally, lacks "brilliant prose" in that there's a heavy use of overly large paragraphs. Sections often consist of a single large paragraph, which hinders ease of reading. Other times, sections consist of a single SMALL paragraph, which looks stubby.  Is there really no more to be said on these subjects?  If so, why is a whole section dedicated to them? Fieari 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, but actually, AndyZ's PR script says the lead is too long. Agree with Fieari's other issues.Rlevse 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm basing the "too small" comment on the fact that it's just one paragraph, however big that paragraph might be. Which is too big, granted, but I mentioned that too.  *shrug* Fieari 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment PLease get rid of the bolding. Sandy 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Object There are entire sections with no inline citations (see, for example, paragraph beginning with "After the end of the World War I,"), bolding is overused, and please fix the footnote punctuation. On prose, this is one sentence in the lead:
 * The Webley service revolver was most notably used in World War I (as the Webley Mk VI), although it had actually been adopted in 1887 (as the Webley Mk I) and risen to prominence during the Boer War of 1899-1902 (as the Webley Mk IV), and were of the "top-break" variety (breaking open much like a double-barrel shotgun to be reloaded), with the advantage of also being self-extracting—the act of breaking the revolver open also operated the extractor, removing the spent cartridges from the cylinder. Sandy 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you pointed out DOES have an inline citation (no 17)... how would you re-write the introduction? Help me out here, instead of just objecting. --Commander Zulu 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply: I don't agree the lead section is too small- what would you put there if you were writing it? In many cases there isn't much more than can be said on some of the contained subjects- they're too important to ignore or incorporate into other sections, but unless you want specialist publication-level detail, I think that's the best compromise. And what's wrong with the bolding/dual use of citations? Feel free to make some of these suggested changes... I'm still relatively new at WP and I have to say the editing and layout here is totally alien to my own experiences, even as a published writer. --Commander Zulu 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've turned the inline links into proper footnotes; perhaps somebody more familiar with citing websites could massage them into whatever the correct citation format is? Kirill Lokshin 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: Seems well written and well-supported. CynicalMe 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - it takes a long time to determine whether an article is FA, while it takes a short time to determine that an article is not FA quality. well it was enough for me to review this article for a few seconds to determine its quality. The article is incomplete and the referencing is questionable. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead section is fine - disregard the too long/too short comments and concentrate your efforst on the other issues mentioned. Raul654 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarification: So, am I to understand that the only real problems anyone has are related to the layout (many of which have subsequently been fixed)? --Commander Zulu 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd just like to say maybe the article should have gone through peer review first (as all articles should be before FA nomination in my opinion). LuciferMorgan 22:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)