Talk:English cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English cannon article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	English cannon has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 15, 2007.
March 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

Contents 1 GA Review 2 Confusing Sentence 3 Changes in calibers? 4 Saker 5 Americentric and patchy 6 "English"

[edit] GA Review

• Support I'l pass it now myself but the nomination was not complete. I'll leave it a day for further comment.Peter Rehse 04:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• And passed. Essentially no comments - it covered all the criteria more than adequetly especially when one considers the relatively small article size. One point though I would like to make. The author submitted the article in one day and immediately self-nominated the article for Good Article status. There is no way one can assess stability which I think is an important, although not essential, component and also no chance for dissenting views to make themselves known. The article is of Good Article quality, I don't expect a mass of edit wars, and the author has a history of good contributions elsewhere (hence the promotion), but I would suggest that in future the futher wait a month or so before self-nominating or at least submit the article first to peer review. Anyway - good job.Peter Rehse 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you both Looper and Peter for assessing the article. I apologise for not leaving the article for a while, but I had been working on it at User:Grimhelm/English cannon since 20 days ago, and had notified editors at Talk:Cannon#Cleanup. However, I will remember in the future to allow time before submitting articles for review. --Grimhelm 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Sentence

I'm having trouble making sense of this sentence in English_cannon#Operation: "After ramming the wad the powder, and that over the bullet, they would then turn the cannon towards the battery or embrasure." The procedure as described here also seems to contradict that in the previous paragraph. SkipSmith 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The grammar and technical information in this article sucks. "After ramming the wad the powder, and that over the bullet, they would then turn the cannon towards the battery or embrasure." What on earth is that supposed to mean? Total gibberish and technically useless.--203.212.133.218 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it means they first ram a wad of something down the cannon barrel, then some gunpowder, then the cannonball, and then they turn the cannon towards the target and get ready to fire. I don't want to make this edit, though, since I'm not sure if I've correctly understood the procedure. SkipSmith 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic procedure for later muzzle loading cannon is this: if the cannon has already been fired, swab the barrel to quench any sparks or burning residue with the sponge end of the rammer. Insert powder charge, usually in the form of pre-weighed charges of gunpowder encased in silk bags (which combust along with the charge, leaving little or no residue) powder is rammed home. Then the projectile is inserted and rammed home tightly to preclude any potential barrel-bursting gap between it and the charge; the projectile may need some form of wadding to hold in place and provide a better gas-tight seal, depending on type (ball, shell, sabot etc). Rinse and repeat. The cannon is not turned during this exercise, but either reloaded and then brought forward, in the case of naval muzzle loaded guns, or dragged forward from the recoil position, then reloaded and fired, in the case of field artillery.--203.212.133.218 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the source or the author that's responsible for the confusion but yes that section needs a bit of clarification. The general placement of the men should be kept separate from the firing proceedure. Simple enough edit. I guess it is easier to critisize than just fix. I also removed the reference to turning since, as correctly pointed out, it might not be necessary or was done prior to loading.Peter Rehse 07:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First consider that it was taken from the 18th century public domain Britannica, which used some archaic and confusing grammar. Just for the record, "the wad the powder", which 203.212.133.218 brought up, should have been "the wad and the powder"; SkipSmith was able to interpret it, so it wasn't completely useless…

Thank you for fixing that section though, as there's nothing like a DYK to find and fix problems with a new article. --Grimhelm 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a little embarassed that I did not pick up on it during the GA-review.Peter Rehse 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in calibers?

I note that the calibers have changed over time - while I find the current information to be *very* useful, would it be good to add information as to when the calibers became a bit more standardized, like when they were in 42-pounders, 32-pounders, 24-pounders, 18-pounders, 12-pounders, 9-pounders, 8-pounders, 6-pounders (see Naval artillery in the Age of Sail for example). In other words, we have a snapshot from one erra, maybe we need a broader view? It would be great to have the range, weight of those guns etc for this more standardized artillery, as we have for the somewhat older and archaic selection in the current article. Observer31 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saker

The link to Saker in the table leads to the demi-culverin article. When doing a search for Saker, you get directed to the bird's page. I think we should improve this no? Observer31 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Americentric and patchy

The 18th Century section is entirely about use in North America, and says very little about the development of ordnance. What happened to all the European wars of the 18th Century? Or to the 17th and 19th? Generally the article is illogically selective in the periods and types of cannon it covers. Not sure it justifies its existence in its present form: there is not much here that is exclusively about English cannon, as opposed to cannon generally, after the medieval period. Cyclopaedic 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"The 18th Century section is entirely about use in North America, and says very little about the development of ordnance." It also gives the characteristics of the cannon used up to 1771, as well as detail on the development of the carronade. Granted, the 17th century and 18th century need some expansion (I just added a small amount on the Civil War period), but there is too much here to put into the main cannon article, or even the history of cannon article. If you have more information to add, then please, go ahead. --Grimhelm 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is deletion, rather than addition. An article about English cannon should be about cannon developed and manufactured in England. Only the medieval cannon and the carronade sections do this. The rest is either about cannon generally (eg the Operation section) or is about the use of cannon (not necessarily English-made or designed) by English or British forces, with a ludicrous emphasis on North America (what have the 13 Colonies got to do with it). There is no mention at all of the history of cannon manufacture in England. The chronology is hopeless, flitting from 18th back to 15th Century and stopping suddenly a the First World War. I think the article is beyond redemption. Cyclopaedic 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Thirteen Colonies were English colonies. Their wars with New France were supported by England. Which cannon were "not necessarily English-made"? The point is that they were used by England. "The chronology is hopeless, flitting from 18th back to 15th Century and stopping suddenly a the First World War." It take it you are referring to the lead? Then you may need to re-read that: the 15th century refers to the timeline of the British Empire.

I also find it unusual that you think the article is "beyond redemption" and the only solution is deletion, when it has already been rated a Good Article for covering all the criteria. Perhaps you would like to add something on cannon manufacture and improve it rather than deleting it? --Grimhelm 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added information to the 18th century section on the Royal Artillery. --Grimhelm 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "English"

The title of this article is somewhat misleading, or at least awkward. What it describes are "cannon used by England (or Britain)", not a specific type or class of cannon. Other than being cannon used by a particular nation, there's nothing that justifies the current title format. I don't think there's a need to actually move the article, but the wording in the lead should definitely be improved. In fact, there's a pretty good argument to simply allow this article to deviate from the normal practice of including the actual title of the article in the lead.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)