Wikipedia:Peer review/Howitzer/archive1

Howitzer
Could someone give me all the things I could add to this article so I could bring this to featured article. I already did a few changes. Thanks Flubeca (t) 23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A few problems/suggestions: Hope I've been a help. - Running On  Brains  20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The lede paragraph is unreferenced. There are also many other statements in other paragraphs without references that should definately have them.
 * "In 1939 they started dropping the words "Gun" and "Howitzer" from their artillery nomenclature." This seems like a typo...the British no longer use the word gun? Or is it that they dropped the "Gun" from "Gun-Howitzer"?
 * The bulleted list at the beginning of the History section is awkward, should be converted to prose. ✅ Flubeca (t) 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot more on Howitzers after WWI...if they are still widely used.
 * On that subject, you should decide whether this article will cover only weapons called "Howitzer" or if it will cover "Gun-Howitzers" as well.

"In 1939 they started dropping the words "Gun" and "Howitzer" from their artillery nomenclature." This seems like a typo...

Er, I thought peer reviewers were supposed to know the subject they pontificate about. In 1939 UK manuals started using only nouns such as 'Ordnance', 'Carriage', 'Mounting' in the titles for new indigenous equipments. A previous version made the point that after a suitable lapse of time the term Gun re-entered the lexicon and was used for what pedantic armies call howitzers.

Incidentally the 49 word sentence that replaces the bulleted list is a real horror. A classic example of 'improvement means detioration'.

Nfe 02:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)