Talk:CornerShot

An entry from CornerShot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 July, 2006.

Wikipedia

Dispute: POV

This article is not neutral point-of-view and lacks source citations for much of anything. It clearly consists mostly of material culled from the product literature provided by the manufacturer of the product.

1) Intro paragraph is far more about the company, how international it is and how much attention they are getting than it is about the alleged topic of the article! This strongly suggests "autobiography" in the form of someone from the company working on the article. 2) Makes unsubstantiated claims, for example regarding muzzle velocity and range - this is very non-NPV, and is simply marketing until confirmed by some other source. 3) Makes subjective claims, e.g. that the weapon is "lightweight" (by whose definition? Instead, provided the actual weight).

I'm not the only one to note these issues; User:RPellessier and User:GangstaEB have improved it substantially, but it still needs a lot of work, especially in the form of neutral-party sources on the performance claims made by the manufacturer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhum... I noticed none... and I created the article.... Gosh one day on the main page and my article is no longer mine. :-)GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 12:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "your" article on Wikipedia. Reverting your edit with summary "". I'm disputing the NPOV and factuality of this article; q.e.d.. So is 84.85.117.168, so is RPellessier (see Article History for their comments). I'm going to add {fact} markers where it clearly needs citations. Will also just remove and/or comment out the purely subjective things.

> I noticed none...

Noticed none what? Not sure what you were referring to there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not picking on you - the fact that there's a salvageable article underneath the marketing material is a testiment to your ability to distill their website into a framework on which to to build more encyclopedic text. PS: Cool animated picture! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The source now has HTML comments indicating several ways to improve article. Hope that helps. If those were resolved I think the NPoV issue would be solved as well. Either that, or the commented-out subjective claims deleted entirely. But that's my take. Two others had neutrality issues with the article too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant no POV issues... and it's your article if you put in all info (except maybe haivng typos and other minor edits by other users. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've definitely done a great job digging up details on this :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed PoV flag; this article's neutrality problems are well solved in this editor's opinion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"How it works" edits

Original version: "The hammer, barrel, and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge. There is a camera and a flashlight attached where the bayonet was attached in the 1700s. On the other side of the hinge there is the trigger, the camera screen, and the camera and flashlight controls."

My version: "The hammer, barrel, magazine and most other moving parts are all on the muzzle end of the weapon, which bends horizontally at a mid-gun hinge. There is a digital camera and a flashlight attached to the barrel in the bayonet position. On the butt side of the hinge are the trigger, camera screen, and controls for the camera and light."

My edit fixes all of the following:

1) Outright factual inaccuracy: "all other moving parts" are not at the front of the gEun; the trigger is a moving part 2) Factual inaccuracy by way of poorly constructed phrase: "the hammer, barrel and all other moving parts of the gun bend and twist at a hinge" is absurd. The barrel cannot possibly bend, or the ammo could not be fired! 3) "and twist at a hinge" i.e. vertically - unsource and frankly implausible claim, that is not supported by the photos nor any citation to published facts. This "twist" claim was not actually removed, simply commented out with a note that it was too implausible without citation to more evidence. 4) Which end is what is now clearer. 5) Ludicrous claim that bayonets are a solely 1700s technology removed. 6) Now says where the hinge is in relation to other parts of the gun. 7) Informal language cleaned up, and made clearer/more specific (and grammatical as to plurality): "on the other side .. there is the..." -> "on the butt side ... are the..." 8) Clarified that the camera is digital (this is a significant fact; an optical system would be rather complicated and require mirrors; some SWAT equipment DOES in fact use purely optical systems to look around corners, so this point isn't silly or trivial) 9) Made closing phrase less repetitive and easier to read ("camera ... and ... camera and" is hard to parse).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant it in a different way... but yours does make a whole lot more sense. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keen. PS: Please indent your replies; it's hard to tell whose saying what otherwise. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unverified image tags

I've added Template:Unverifiedimage tags on images used here. They are all mislabeled as Template:web-screenshot. Please add the correct image license tag and whether they are fair use or have been released by copyright owner. Thanks. Ytny 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

fixed it... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the web-screenshot tag. But you still need to provide a fair use ratioinale for each photograph. You have to show that the articles is about the images themselves (which isn't the case here) or explain what the fair use is. I think one image would qualify as fair use for describing the subject of the article, but I don't think three is appropriate. Ytny 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding (though IANAL) that materials distributed by a copyright holder for the express purpose of promoting a product or service pretty much automatically confer a fair use right for re-use for the purposes of review. This is how newpapers and magazines can use promo stills from movies and TV shows with impunity, even if their review is negative. If these images were from a internal shareholder document or something, this could be an issue, but they are not, they are product promo photos. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

IANAL either, but I think the fair use under promotional use as you propose is, at best, iffy the way the images are used in this article.

You mention newspapers and magazines using promotional images, but they receive press kits or directed to a server dedicated to promotional materials. Which is to say, they receive explicit permission to use specific images and the licenses.

The big difference here is that images on websites are licensed for use on the website only, and they haven't been released for any other use. The assumption is that nothing on a website is for free use unless it specifically says otherwise. And in fact, the defense-update.com site clearly says "All rights reserved" - basically, don't take anything from here without asking. Ytny 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excep that defense-update probably got them from promo materials too! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... I've seen those pictures on TV... plus I think some of those sources have some of the same images... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, but those TV programs presumably had permission from the copyright owners, or were using copyright free images, and you would have to detail what those license terms are. Like I said, I think fair use is fine - you just have to detail why they're fair use on the image page. Ytny 20:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I say, just ask the company for pics they would be happy to haev in WikiPedia, and in paricular for the one's already used, but in higher resolution. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Finishing touches

The only thing that seems missing to me is a subsection on, and info about, the "version that can fit existing automatic weapons such as the M16", which is mentioned but has a notable absence of deets. Great that a clear pic of the anti-tank model was available. Schweet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard details

Where is the beef? Get some details and info on the standard edition. We got plenty of features told that is for all the weapons, but I'm sure there's one on the standard that isn't on all the weapons. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references. Tarret 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Just FYI, I find the 4-in-one pic to be not very useful - I don't think people should have to click on a photo to make it out, and even clicking on this one doesn't make it big enough to see any real detail. Also I liked the layout much better with the separate pics. It made the article look very "robust". If the four-in-one is kept, it should be replaced with a big version at least 100% larger than the current one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The four pics sorta had a fair use problem since their was cramming. I hated taking out the original 4. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)