Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Cannon


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Cannon
The main article for the cannon article series, presently of GA status. It was initially deemed not thoroughly cited enough in its prior nomination here, and although the problems were fixed, the review expired. It should be sufficiently improved now. --Grimhelm 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Comment. Is the development of rifling part of the history of cannons?  Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see this discussed in the article. Cla68 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added it to the See also section, as I think it is more within the scope of Cannon operation or perhaps History of cannon than the main article. --Grimhelm 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think more of the technological development of cannon, such as the introduction of rifling, should be in the body. Cla68 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, as I did before, although I still believe that the "see also" section should be abandoned, and the relevant links incorporated into the body of the article. Carom 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is sufficent but I agree with Carom that the See Also section should be removed. Kyriakos 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are many things I did like. Please forgive me on concentrationg on things I did not like, and feel free to disagree. As I see it, every subsection in the "history" section of the article should give a (relatively short) explanation of important technical developments and of a role - with an emphasis on changes in a role - of cannon in the specific era and/or region, while the separate "History of cannon" article provides - or will eventually provide - more detils. Some subsections, however, are far from being good overviews - sometimes a bit too detailed, often missing key points, sometimes too "chaotic". I like the "early" and "medieval europe" (although, the article lets the reader to conclude that cannons played a significant role at Crecy, which is questionable at least). However, the "post-medieval" and the "18-19 century" IMHO concentrate too heavily on siege warfare and on naval artillery respectively. Both seem to ignore field artillery, which started to play a major role in post-medieval campaigns and by 19th century developed into a key factor on battlefield. As already mentioned by Cla68, the "18-19"" ignores important techical developments such as rifling, breech loading (and possibly recoil systems, also one can say that it should belong to the "modern" section). As for the "modern"... may be I am wrong, but I think it needs a major rewriting. Again, key technical developments (recoil systems if not mentioned earlier, possibly split trail carriage, possibly mortars, certainly SP artillery etc, possibly introduction of lots of new ammunition types) and change in battlefield roles (such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft warfare) are missing or almost missing. Moreover, the section simply looks confusing to me, as it seems to run back and forth between different periods, types of weapons etc without following any order. Since there were so many relevant developments in the modern era, perhaps that subsection should be split ? Again, may be I'm wrong or just too pedantic. I do understand that the task is quite ambitious and that a lot of effort had been put in the article. And I did like many parts of the article. And, being an inexperienced reviewer, I don't claim that the article is not good enough for A class. However, as a pedant with some interest in artillery, I have to say that IMHO it still needs a lot of work before I will be able to say to somebody who asks me what cannon is - go read the wikipedia article. Bukvoed 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have removed the see also section, and added a few paragraphs on field artillery. As for Crécy, medieval cannon had more of a psychological impact (which would be useful against an army three times your size), and it was a new experience for infantry unused to gunpowder warfare. --Grimhelm 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.