Talk:M1841 6-pounder field gun

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:M1841 6-pounder field gun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Background
See comments below. Djmaschek (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Iron cannons were much cheaper to manufacture, and they did not warp from overheating.: there is a bit of repetitive language in the surrounding sentences. How about rephrasing to "Iron cannons did not suffer this problem and were much cheaper to manufacture."

• Changed to: "Iron cannons did not warp and were much cheaper to manufacture."  Done

• ...if the piece met the specifications and...: no antecedence for "the specifications", suggest "the desired specifications"

• Changed to "desired specifications".  Done

• ...delivered 74 cast-iron 6-pounder guns of an order of 100.: "guns out of"?

• Insert the word "out".  Done

• ...produced 2 cast-iron 6-pounders...: write out the 2, ditto the numbers in the first sentence dealing with the switch to bronze cannon

• Changed "2" to "two". Please note that I have read/received conflicting advice about numbers. One rule seems to be to write out numbers one through nine and to use numerals for 10 or more. A second rule seems to be to keep numbers consistent within a class. Example: If dealing with casualties, use 7 killed, 15 wounded, and 46 captured (rather than "seven killed"). A third rule is instead of writing "66 6-pounders", write "sixty-six 6-pounders". I wish there was a consistent rule we could all agree on.  Done

• At present, he makes a good gun by accident, whereas it is by accident only that he should make a bad one.: I don't quite get this quote; I think the second part should be opposite the first, i.e. it is not by accident only that he should make a bad one?

• This is a word-for-word quote which I double-checked. It was written in 1840 so the sentence structure may be odd. He's saying that so many bad guns are being produced that the good guns are only being made by accident.  Not done

• ...decided to switch to bronze field guns...: what was the motivation give the 75% failure rate mentioned in the first sentence?

• I removed the first sentence. It's really not relevant to the history and only leads the reader to ask your question. Your motivation question is answered by the previously discussed high failure rate of iron guns.  Done

• Of the latter group, 10...: write out this number, there are more numbers later in this paragraph needing this attention as well

• I will use the rule: one to nine written out; 10 to infinity in numerals.  Done

• The second paragraph of the Switch to bronze section deals specifically with the M1841 gun so perhaps it should have a ==-level heading since it doesn't seem to me to be "Background". Maybe "Development of the M1841?"

• Add section: Model 1841 and its variants.  Done

• Also needs to mention the gun is a smooth bore, I don't think this is explicitly mentioned anywhere in the body until the Civil War section latet

• Add sentence at start of Eagle Foundry paragraph: "The M1841 6-pounder was designed as a smoothbore gun, and only later were some 6-pounders converted to rifled guns." Smoothbore is also mentioned in the first sentence of the introduction.  Done

• The second paragraph needs to mention when production began; as I understand it, the M1835 did not start production until 1836 so the designation of M1841 doesn't automatically mean that it started production in 1841

• Added sentence: "The first Model 1841 Ames guns were accepted in October 1841 and the first Alger guns were accepted in November 1841."  Done

• Suggest breaking the paragraph here: The Eagle Foundry of Miles Greenwood

•  Done

• The table heading seems inappropriate since it includes the M1835, M1838 and M1840 guns. Perhaps "Model 1841 bronze 6-pounder cannon, variants and precedessors"?

• I disagree because I think a variant can precede the standard (which is the M1841 version). "Variant: a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard."  Not done

Specifications
See comments below. Djmaschek (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Length is given in "in" and "cm" in text but "ft" and "m" in infobox

• Infobox changed to in/cm.  Done

• Strictly a suggestion only, but it may be useful to have the image directly alongside the first paragraph explaining the dimension of the gun with reference to certain features for easier reference for the reader

• Good idea. Moved cannon diagram after paragraph 1.  Done

History

• The American bronze 6-pounder field guns...: is this a generic reference to all bronze guns, e.g. the M1835 guns or specifically the M1841 gun?

•  Comment: Generic ref. There were no other bronze US-made 6-pounders besides the ones discussed in this article.

• Were they used at Gettysburg, the photo suggests they were?

• Expanded caption to explain that at least one was present.  Done

• Some of the smaller casualty numbers need to be written out

• I changed it but see my comment about casualties above.  Done

• See James rifle.: consider an alternative of integrating this or move to a See also section, sticks out like a sore thumb here

• Removed James rifle. Added See also section with 14-pounder James rifle. This had two variants, one being a rifled 6-pounder.  Done

• I'm not seeing evidence of its service beyond 1863, bearing in mind the infobox says it was used up to 1868

•  Comment: The second paragraph under Model 1841 and variants has this: "The gun was not officially discarded by the US Army until 1868 though none were produced after 1862." Just because it was official doesn't mean it was used by the US Army. Some Confederate units had 6-pounders as late as 1864. See Val Verde Texas Battery.

Other stuff

• Sources look to be RS
• No spotchecks done of sourcing, happy to AGF given nominator's history
• Image tags OK
• No dupe links

That's me done for now. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Zawed: I should have pinged you earlier. Could you review my edits please. Djmaschek (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the changes and comments above, I am satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria so am passing as such. Good work! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Cascabel

The side view illustration (same as in cannon is helpful. However the spelling is unusual. According to Wiktionary “le” is an alternative spelling but it has no source and no quotations. I’ve never seen this spelling before and it isn’t in my goto dictionary. Wikipedia has Cascabel (artillery) which I suggest be a link somewhere, if only for the illustration of the parts of a cascabel. Perhaps we are stuck with the illustration, so I’d like to see a note attached to the link. (Or globalize and call it a cul de lampe.) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)