Wikipedia:Peer review/Krag-Petersson/archive1

Krag-Petersson
"Breach-" should be replaced with breech- (I'm new here: I know something about guns, but I'm not prepared to edit the page.) oreb 10:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much wrote all of this article myself, but it's in need for some fresh eyes to bring it up a notch or two. Could espesially need attention from someone patient enought to correct all my spelling mistakes ;) WegianWarrior 12:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not too many spelling mistakes, I fixed the ones there were. If you use Firefox, you may be interested in the Spellbound extension.  It allows spell checking in text input boxes like Wikipedia's. My biggest question is what is a breachblock?  There are a number of other terms that could stand wikifying. The gun specific stuff could stand with at least creating stubs for them. Some of them should be explained better in the page.  Someone not all that familiar with guns should be able to know what the basic terms are. - Taxman 21:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Figured the easiest way to explain what a breachblock is was to create a stub on it ;)
 * As a gun-nut myself, I find it a bit hard to know what parts should be wikified and have stubs written for them - so any help from anyone who isn't a gun-nut would be helpfull... I'll try to make sure there are no red links in the article if someone just wikifi any terms they don't understand :) WegianWarrior 09:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just think of any of the terms that you know that a non gun person would not. All of those need to be understandable from the context, and many should have articles of their own. But here's a go at some more that need inline explanations of what they are, and or a stub article.
 * mechanism
 * actuation
 * chambered
 * linjers - at least make it more clear that is the name for the ammo
 * breachblock - should also be explained inline. For ex. "...operate the breachblock, which is..."
 * cartridge
 * block
 * Great material though. Can you get a picture of one to add to the article? A picture of the rifle and/or a diagram of it with all of the parts labeled would be ideal.  A diagram could be created by someone skilled in a diagram creation program. - Taxman 17:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Tried to make it a bit more easy to understand for a layman. A diagram is going to be harder.. must wait until I'm home from work at any rate ;) WegianWarrior 09:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow! I like the drawings. You have a talent for drawing it seems. Overall, not a bad article but I'd like to see:
 * An expanded lead section. It needs to be longer than a sentence. Give us another wow factor... I always find it helpful to summarise each section with a line or two.
 * I don't know much about guns, so some of the terminology needs a bit of tightening up: "falling block action" springs to my eye. 
 * "Accuracy was also claimed to be very good with the Krag-Petersson, although no statistical proof has been found." Can we clarify who has said this? Or is this just a general claim. If it's a general claim, I'm thinking we need a well-known source... I know it's nit picking but this is peer review.
 * Is there a good GFDL or PD picture of the gun itself we could use on Wikipedia?
 * The article seems a little short, but it could be an issue with subject matter and not lack of research :-) Exactly how much can you write about a gun anyway? :P No, I think this is excellent work and once you give it some time on PR I'd list it on WP:PR. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't take the honours for the drawings - I manages to locate the original training manuals for the rifle (printed around 1876 or 1877) and scanned those since they are definitly out of copyright. Still glad you like them - they are IMO very instructive.
 * I will take some time tomorrow (almost bedtime right now) to adress your other points, as well as to hunt for pictures that could be of use for the Wikipedia. If none can be found, I can (at a later date, granted) head over to the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum and take a picture of one of the ones they have in their exhibition.
 * Re (3) - I found the statement in the source cited at the bottom of the article that the weapon was considered to be extremly accurante, but has found no information on excatly how accurate "extremly acurate" meant in 1876 ;)
 * WegianWarrior 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent :) I'm happy to see such a thorough and contientious article writer in our midst! With the source, just list it and note that they didn't mention what they meant my "accurate". - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've spendt some time on it today, hopefully making it better in the process. It is hard to find good sources of information about this rifle, probaly because less than a thousand was made in the first place. No luck on that picture yet. WegianWarrior 21:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)