Talk:History of cannons

History of cannons has been listed as one of the History 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 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 18, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 28, 2007.

Current status: Good article

Military history: Technology / Weaponry GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

}}|yes||

Wikipedia

}}

|}

Move

I moved this to the plural so that it fits History of firearms and other such articles. It also sounds really odd as singular. gren グレン 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the main Cannon article, "cannon" is both the singular and the plural. In the cannon series, that is the plural used. --Grimhelm 06:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. Someone fixed my mistake. It still sounds odd to me but my move was premature and based on my usage--not proper English. gren グレン 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be moved to "History of the cannon", I think--WoodElf 08:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why so? We don't have "History of the firearms", do we? --Grimhelm 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article status on hold

This article is very close to passing the GA criteria: the prose is very good, the referencing is excellent, and the photos are well-sourced. The only part of the article that is not GA-status is the "Modern cannon" section. The lead-in refers to cannon in the past tense ("Cannon were large tubular...") and omits any reference to modern cannon. Additionally, the "Modern cannon" section itself feels like a collection of facts rather than a section of the article: its one-sentence paragraphs drift off into related armaments like mortars and howitzers, and generally stray from the "History of Cannon" topic.

Extend the lead-in and fix the "Modern cannon" section, and it will pass the GA criteria. Let me know via my talk page in the next week. Tlesher 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? --Grimhelm 12:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, good. Thanks for your hard work! Tlesher 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First use of cannons?

Its my understanding that the use of cannons in China preceded the use in Europe by more than a hundred years, and that the technology was transferred through the Middle East or by the Mongols. Shouldn't the introduction reflect this? Also, are English Cannon so notable that they should be mentioned in the introduction? --lk 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed and reorganized introduction. Please discuss for balance and NPV.--lk 10:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in 1981

"Today, United States 152 mm artillery fires Shillelagh missiles, which are guided to their targets by infra-red beams" is not true. MGM-51 Shillelagh was retired years ago. Perhaps something about precision-guided munitions, such as the XM982 Excalibur, could be added, but my English isn't up to task. 190.224.85.197 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

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. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.7

This article was nominated for manual review, then after it was passed, someone else proposed its removal (too much duplicate content with cannon). I will discuss the issue with the relevant people - please leave any comments below. We'll try to get a consensus on whether or not it should be included. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably have more success discussing this over at Talk:Cannon, more people watch that page. The reason why this page is nearly a copy of Cannon is that the history section of Cannon was better than this article, so we replaced it (I discussed it with Grimhelm, who had done quite a bit of work on both articles), because the main page date for Cannon was too soon for this article to be improved. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]