Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Webley Revolver

Webley Revolver

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at TFAR nom/doc.

The result was: not scheduled by Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)



The Webley Revolver (also known as the Webley Top-Break Revolver or Webley Self-Extracting Revolver) was, in various marks, the standard issue service pistol for the armed forces of the United Kingdom, the British Empire, and the Commonwealth from 1887 until 1963.

The Webley is a top-break revolver with automatic extraction. That is, breaking the revolver open for reloading also operates the extractor. This removes the spent cartridges from the cylinder. The Webley Mk I service revolver was adopted in 1887. A later version, the Mk IV, rose to prominence during the Boer War of 1899–1902. However, the Mk VI, introduced in 1915 during the First World War, is perhaps the best-known model.Firing the large .455 Webley cartridge,  Webley service revolvers are among the most powerful top-break revolvers ever produced. Although the .455 calibre Webley is no longer in military service, the .38/200 Webley Mk IV variant is still in use as a police sidearm in a number of countries.With a modified, "shaved" cylinder and the use of a half moon clip, the Webley Mk VI can fire the 45 ACP cartridge, although full-power or +P .45 ACP cartridges exceed Webley proof loads and should not be used. Many of the Webley Mk VIs were converted to fire 45 ACP ammunition after .455 Webley ammunition became increasingly difficult to find.
 * Most recent similar article(s):
 * Main editors:
 * Promoted:
 * Reasons for nomination:
 * Support as nominator. Glowadz (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Has already been TFA once, and no obvious indication given by nominator (who is clearly not "the main editor" of the article) as to what the circumstances are that would justify running the same article twice. &#8209; Iridescent 15:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)