Talk:Huolongjing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Huolongjing has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
June 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
June 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Note[edit]

I just cut-and-pasted the majority of information from the Jiao Yu article into this one, since all of this information in Jiao Yu's article was off-topic.--PericlesofAthens 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold[edit]

I really hate to do this to an article that shows so very much outstanding work. However, my problem is the WP:LEDE, which currently does not serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. The main problem is that there is a large amount of historical information in the article, the main points of which need to be given a top-level summary. I actually think it will be tricky and perhaps time-consuming to do this in only a few sentences.

I also found the long list of weapons offered in the current lede to be distracting. It will also be tricky to rewrite that information in an interesting way... I suggest mentioning each of the subsections of the article "...firearms and flamethrowers including (notable example), bombards and cannons including (notable example), land mines and naval mines, gunpowder and explosives including (notable example) and fire arrows and rockets.."

This article will need polishing before WP:FAC. Aside from my qualms with the lede, however, it is currently well above the quality level needed for GA. Good work! Ling.Nut 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the chinse word doesn't correspond to the english romanization word for word. Blueshirts 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which particular words? I can check on them. --lk 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of good information here, but it doesn't really belong in this article. I think the article should keep to describing the book and its historical circumstance. In particular, much of the material in 'Historical perspective', about events hundreds of years later, is off-topic. Perhaps a fork to another article about firearms in China? --lk 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Drake" or "Dragon"?[edit]

  • I found 火龍經 translated as "Fire Drake Manual" and corrected it to "Fire Dragon Manual".
User:PericlesofAthens reverted it "Dude, you can't just go around changing the titles of books; unless you have a scholarly source that uses a different name than Needham, it will be drake, not dragon, sorry..". But the title of the original Chinese book was 火龍經, not anything written in English. And 龍 means "dragon", not the modern meaning of "drake". Perhaps its translator used "drake" in an obsolete sense, like Tolkien did once. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing incorrect at all about "Fire Drake Manual," drake is simply an archaic term for dragon. The difference between the two is merely a matter of style. Aas217 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. A couple of improvements are suggested below.

  • The second paragraph of the lead is overly detailed and overly sourced. I suggest cutting it down and removing the sources to improve readability. All the information is a repeated and sourced further down the article anyway.
  • There is an external link that shouldn't be there and the article needs its links checking again, several technical words that should be linked (like matchlock) are not.

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your advice to heart by deleting all the lead section's citations (except for three that did not appear elsewhere with material that was not covered elsewhere) and linking matchlock where it was not linked and should have been, since the only time its link appeared elsewhere was in the lead.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This picture is misleading[edit]

That drawing displays a formation from, at the earliest, the 1500s, more likely the 1600s. This book was written in the 1300s. It's a bit misleading. Gunslinger1812 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A link to the actual text?[edit]

I've been trying to find a copy of the actual text (either the original Chinese or an English translation) without any luck. I think having a link to a public domain work like this (or possibly hosting it on wikimedia commons) would improve the article significantly. Is anyone willing to track down a copy? Eoseth (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I recently came across this Taiwanese website with a transcription in Traditional Chinese. I checked 4 entries to the pictures used in this article, and they are exactly the same as far as I can tell. http://www.cos.url.tw/book/6/O-1-053.htm Zhonghua88 (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

From "Historical context" per WP:COATRACK:

Although not perfected until the 19th century with the cartridge of Samuel Johannes Pauly in 1809, Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse's 'Needle Gun' in 1836, and the steel–cast Krupp cannon in the 1850s, the history of the European breech–loading gun spans back to the late 14th century, the earliest models found in Burgundy.[1] Before the improvements by those mentioned above, these early breech loading rifles and cannons were somewhat unsatisfactory due to serious loss of gas when firing, resulting in the decreased force of the propellant.[2]

  1. ^ Needham, Volume 5, Part 7, 366.
  2. ^ Needham, Volume 5, Part 7, 366–367.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkish/Ottoman Firing Positions[edit]

What do those look like? Should their be a different article on ottoman warfare, or a section on that, if one already exists?