Wikipedia:Peer review/Huolongjing/archive1

Huolongjing edit

NOTE:This article's title has been moved to a new one, I am reposting the info on the new request page.--PericlesofAthens 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes one of the most important books of medieval literature from China. Compiled and edited by Jiao Yu and Liu Ji in the 14th century (with Jiao's preface added in a publication of 1412 AD), this military treatise outlines, describes, and illustrates in many different drawings the various 'fire-weapons' employing gunpowder in their time. This includes 'fire arrows', flamethrower/firearm 'fire lances', early guns, bombards, cannons, exploding cannonballs, land mines, naval mines, rocket launchers, two stage rockets, winged rockets, and more. Although the article is mostly sufficient and meets criteria for at least B-class status (in my opinion), it could be improved in many places, such as in organization, clarity, etc. I am aiming for Good Article status, although the eventual Featured Article is always a possibility. Since I created the article (and Jiao Yu's), I would be grateful of anyone's suggestions and additions to it. Thank you.--PericlesofAthens 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. I enjoyed reading it.

I would suggest that the article title be moved to "Huolongjing" per pinyin grammar rules on word formation - i.e. that multi-syllabic words expressing one concept should be written as one word. Ditto "Tian Gong Kai Wu" and "Wu jing zong yao" (also note inconsistent capitalisation in those two examples).

It could just be me but I don't like insertions of Chinese text in an English article without some indication as to it being Chinese text or its meaning. I would suggest that "元大德二年 (1298 AD)" be re-formatted as "2nd year of the Dade era, Yuan Dynasty (1298 AD)", since the Chinese text by itself is likely to be meaningless and perhaps confusing for a non-Sinophone reader.

The lengthy quote under "Land mines and naval mines" could benefite from the Template:cquote template.

The vast majority of information seems to be sourced from Needham, Volume 5, Part 7. Perhaps a greater variety of sources would improve the article further.

Thanks, Sumple (Talk) 01:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply First off, thank you for contributing to the peer review, great suggestions!

First point - I realize my mistake now, and I will go through the long and dreadful process of changing that to one long word in this wiki article and dozens of others. Ouch. Lol.

Second point - I'll fix that in a moment.

Third point - Actually, the Template:cquote page says cquote is only appropriate for short quotes given at the beginning or very end of a section to provide context for the rest of the text material. For large quotes (like that one) it says simply to use the blockquote method.

Fourth point - a good point! Lol. But I don't have any books (besides Needham's) lying around my house that are focused solely on the history of gunpowder. There's only so much web material I could muster and find out there on the internet. Google scholar is of little help (only sporadic content in a sparse amount of books here and there will provide anything good on the history of gunpowder in China...I was lucky even to find Partington's book...what little I was allowed to see of his book). My school's library has the Needham collection of volumes, but when it comes to gunpowder history, they are sorely lacking, I was lucky to find Khan's book to be honest. I do have an online library of information thanks to the university I am attending, but they have a limited amount of books to choose from. If anyone could help contribute to this article with further book sources at hand, I would be very grateful. Peace. --PericlesofAthens 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article, I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I am a bit puzzled to find no direct quotations or citations of the actual book... is there some kind of new WP:RULE saying "no citing the actual thing the article is about", or this this a simple oversight? I think it would help if relevant passages amd translations can be backed up with actual quotes in footnote format. Also, it would be better if you provided Chinese characters along with their pinyin transliterations: it is sometimes really confusing to read a pinyin and have to struggle to recall/conceptualize the actual word. Lastly, the cartoon color picture looks pretty... unprofessional. Is it reliable? -- 我♥中國 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point: There should be no need for you to be puzzled, since there are two quotations of the Huolongjing in the article, one on sea mines, the other on rockets. I will try my best to see what I can do about pinyin to Chinese characters (I don't speak or write Chinese very well, I am just now taking an elementary language course for pǔtōnghuà). Also, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with the cartoon pic, but if others agree with your sentiment, I don't mind removing it. I do agree that it does look a little too...apprentice-like for a good article (or any article on wiki for that matter).--PericlesofAthens 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, given the article is about the book, more than 2 direct qoutations from it are warranted... For the Chinese characters, I might be able to help you with that, as long as I can figure out what they are. Finally, as for the picture, it's not really the quality I'm worried about, rather, the accuracy/reliability... is it an illustration from a history book? Is it an online picture? Does wherever the picture was obtained from have some information on what exactly it depicts, and is it accurately depicted? -- 我♥中國 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional nitpick: For the caption to the last picture (currently "Chinese Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) era matchlock firearms featuring serpentine levers"), can you specify a date? 300 years is a lot to be ambiguous about. -- 我♥中國 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to find more quotations, I suppose, but the two will suffice for now (wikipedia articles are more about prose than quotations, that's why Wikiquote was established). As for the picture of the rocket and the Chinese soldier, I decided to just scrap it. On the description page for the Ming Dynasty matchlock firearms, it simply says "Illustrations of Ming-style matchlock muskets", which is kind of stupid, since it is a photograph, not an "illustration" or drawing. Anyways, I think it might be dated to the 16th century, but I am not certain; it could be early 17th for all I know.--PericlesofAthens 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me, I meant using more direct quotations as a source to back up your prose, not more quotations in the prose (although that might help too). As for the matchlock picture, I think I uploaded it... :p I'll go back and find if I have some more sourcing information for it... -- 我♥中國 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a revision to include some reference to "Chinese Military Technology and Dai Viet, c. 1390-1427" by Sun Laichen and "Chinese-style Firearms in Dai Viet (Vietnam)". Also reference to Ho Nguyen Trung ("Li Cheng" in Chinese), the inventor of the flash pan and wooden sabot in Vietnam and later taken to Nanjing and put in charge of manufacturing weapons for use against Mongols. Trung ultimately rose to position of Minister of Works in Beijing (c1443) for his work on "shenji qiangpao 神机枪砲 ". In 1407, the Ming acquired from the Vietnamese a weapon called shen qiang, shenqiang jian, or shen shi huoqiang [神機火鎗 Thần Cơ Hỏa Thương],meaning literally "magic fire-lance arrow." It was a fire-lance but better than its Chinese counterpart due to one unique featrue: it had a heavy wood wad (wooden sabot) made of ironwood behind the arrow to increase pressure within the barrel This "arrow" could be fired as far as three hundred paces. A fire-lance is basically a stick carrying an explosive device (ignited by a fuze) fired from a gun (hand-cannon aka handgunne aka pole-gun),