Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lee–Enfield/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lee-Enfield[edit]

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The article has undergone a major expansion since it was last reviewed, and is now pretty well comprehensively referenced (IMHO). Ultimately I'd like to get the article to FA level, but in the meantime I certainly feel it's much better than a "B-class" article and is thus ready for A-class review. The article is currently undergoing a Peer Review, so far with no major criticisms, which further suggests the article (on an important subject) is suitable for promotion. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Two external links register as suspicious and need to be checked out. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed two of the less valuable external links. I don't understand what you mean by "Dab link", though. Commander Zulu (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link then: Disambiguation page. Basically, if you click on the "disambig links" link in the toolbox I left on the right, you will find articles that link to broad pages, nopt specific pages (USS Enterprise rather than USS Enterprise (CVN-65)), and as of late the presence of unessicary disambig links in an article has been grounds ofr opposition at FAC. It would be better for you to locate these disambig links and correct them so they point to the article you had in mind rather than to a page that leaves readers guessing as to where you wanted them to go. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a superb article about a historic and famous firearm. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 05:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Generally, only one review should be open at a time (so I was told once by a Co-ord), so I would recommend closing and archiving the peer review.
    • The date ranges in the infobox and anywhere else in the article require an endash (–).
    • Multiple proportions of this article remain unreferenced, ranging from sentences to several paragraphs, and should be. The article needs to be fully referenced and verifiable if it is going to pass A-Class, and more so for FAC.
    • Abreviations such as "WWI" and "WWII" look informal and unprofessional, IMHO, so I would try and shy away from them.
    • Cite #2 should be formated properly and should have an access date, as should #8, 57, 61, 64 and 65.
    • For a more visually appealing article, consider re-alligning a few more images to the left.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the citations, Ian Skennerton's The Lee-Enfield (2007) is acknowledged as THE definitive text on the subject. I really think it's a bit redundant having to provide a page reference for every single sentence in the article; IMHO it gets to the point where the references become distracting. There are other FA-class articles with considerably less referencing in them, and given the exhaustive referencing elsewhere in this article I think it's a safe bet that the contents can be considered verified facts, even if there isn't a cite for every single sentence. Commander Zulu (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, I think you will have a hard time pushing it through FAC with its current lack of citations and I'd even be very reluctant to support it for A-Class. Every paragraph needs at least one cite that covers it all, and I think that you would find any FA articles that are lacking citations would more then likely have been promoted a few years ago when the criteria was more relaxed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I have closed the peer review as generally you shouldn't have two reviews open at the same time, it splits resources. I have fixed the "dab" (disambiguation) link for you: it was Rubber. Some comments from me:
  • A1: I disagree with Abraham on the referencing issue. Not every sentence should be cited, though generally, all paragraphs should as usually they will contain sentences that could be "reasonably challenged". Personally, I don't like citation counting, for me, this article seems to be "there" in terms of citations.
    • Just to note, I didn't mean that every sentence needs to be cited, just several sentences at the end of paragraphs are uncited in this article as are several paragraphs. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do need to be formatted correctly though: The external links references need to have publisher and retrieval dates added. It is easiest to do this with citation templates.
  • A2: Looks good in this regard, it is comprehensive without being too wordy I think.
  • A3: Meets the criteria I think.
  • A4: It does seem to be MOS compliant for the main part. I do think that WWI and WWII should not be used: the full form should be used, and preferably First World War and Second World War as this is general Commonwealth usage.
  • A5: Images:
  • File:SMLE Mk III.jpg. Is there any log or copy of the permission to use this image?
  • I am not sure about the "Gallery of images" section. This is redundant to the link to commons.
So, overall, it is not quite up to A-Class, but with a few little fixes it will be there. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo came from someone known to me and has been there for years now; if there was an objection I expect someone might have said something by now... Having said that, someone uploaded another image not long ago that got reverted by someone else. Might be a possibility. I'm going to remove the "Gallery of Images" now, if it's redundant. Also, I'm not entirely sure "First World War" and "Second World War" are "general Commonwealth usage"; I'm in the Commonwealth and I use WWI and WWII in written form almost exclusively and I know many other people do too. We say First World War and Second World War, but we'd write it WWI and WWII. There's a "Throatwarbler Mangrove" joke in there somewhere, I guess. :P Commander Zulu (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody might not have noticed or scrutinised the image: they are now, and they will at FAC. Just saying that you have permission is not enough, it needs to be corroborated, preferably through OTRS. In terms of WWI and WWII, it is not very professional to have it in text, and it doesn't read well to me. Woody (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the image to one that has (apparently) been released into the public domain by the creator. As for WWI/WWII; I'm not prepared to go through the article and change it, but if someone else really feels that strongly about it I'm not going to get too worked up over it. FWIW, the shooting magazines here in Australia use WWI/WWII in print in lieu of First/Second World War if the subject comes up a lot in the same article. Commander Zulu (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does anyone know how to use a citation template to bring the external links into line with the published links? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was talking about the web references, see below. Woody (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - too many citation problems, as outlined below, and many, many more in-line citations are needed. Please see all of the {{fact}} tags I have added, and be sure that references at the end of each paragraph cover the entire para (not saying this is a current problem, just saying to double-check) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References comments (this version)
    • Can you modify these to follow WP:CITESHORT? There is a lot of unecessary text there that is driving me insane as I read the same ref (but a different page) for the tenth time...maybe something like this: "lastname (year), p. 00" or lastname (year), pp. 00–00" ...
    • Also, you are missing a few of books in your "references" - they are mentioned in "notes", but not in "references"...see refs 7, 16, maybe more...
    • Ref #2 - what makes http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/main.htm as a reliable source? Also, this needs an access date.
    • What is up with the formatting of Ref #6? Did you mix {cite book} and {citation}? (just FYI, you aren't supposed to if you did; the two templates use different citation styles)
    • Ref #7 has the author twice.
    • Ref #8 needs an access date, and bear in mind that the board changes - that info will not be there forever...
    • Ref #16 - "hereafter referred to...." No. Please no. Put the full citation in the "references" section, and follow WP:CITESHORT. Don't make readers hunt for a reference.
    • Ref #45 - the title should not be "index.htm", and it is a dead link for me.
    • Access dates - refs 61 and 65.
    • Can you use {{cite news}} or {{citation}} (whichever style you pick; see above - {cite ___} can't be mixed with {citation}) with ref #64.
    • What makes http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot37.htm a reliable source?
    • Above all, stay consistent. Shortening the footnotes should alleviate this concern, but right now you have way too many differing formats in your citations...for example, an ISBN or no ISBN? Pick! :)
    • Any references for the "Cultural impact" section?
    • Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to appear rude, but can someone please help me with all this referencing stuff? Honestly, I am sick of banging my head against a wall trying to get this article higher than a "B" only to have people nit-picking the reference layouts. IMHO the sort of stuff that's being criticised is the difference between an "A" and an "FA" article, not a "B" and and "A" class article. It's taken me ages to get the references up in the first place, and I just don't have the coding knowledge to use templates to bring them into some sort of uniformity. If someone could help I'd greatly appreciate it. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sorted the web refs and the sole use of {{citation}}, but I have left the other references for the moment. Commander Zulu, do you want to use a short ref style such as the one found in Operation Brevity, or do you want the long reference style? Personally, I prefer the short style as it is easier to read, but it is up to you. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ed's fact tags were removed, you can see them in this version. Woody (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the longer ones for the first appearance, and the the shorter style for subsequent references by the same author, if that helps. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: it is all or nothing I'm afraid, for consistency. We don't want to mix styles, all of the full information will be available in the references section. Do you want me to use the short citation style? It is a lot of work so I don't want to do it and then it be reverted. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the short style would probably be best. I appreciate the help, BTW! Commander Zulu (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zulu, something like this is what I meant by "short style"...sorry for not being clearer. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the references, see this version. I have added the missing isbns and merged several duplicate refs. It looks a lot neater now in my opinion. What do you think? Regards, Woody (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does! Good job Woody :)
However, my strong oppose still stands due to the numerous paras that do not have citations (see my fact-tagged version - thanks for the link, Woody) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I went through the article yesterday and deleted several paragraphs for which I couldn't find a reliable source and I could not verify from my own knowledge of the subject, or which were just irrelevant anyway (The section on the wood types, what the HitlerHistory Channel ranked the gun as in one of their countless space-filler shows, and so on). I also added some more citations (from Skennerton and the 1929 War Office Textbook of Small Arms). Some of the things you've requested cites for do not need citations because they're patently obvious (such as the last para in the "In Civilian use" section, for example) or because the information is cited slightly further along the same paragraph (The Khyber Pass Copy section; ref 63 covers all the information in that section). Also, "The Box O'Truth" is a well-known shooting website where they test things like bullet penetrations, expansion, and so on. There are photos on the website explaining every step they go through and I certainly feel it's a reliable and notable source. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one ref covers an entire para, please put it at the end of the para to show that it covers everything.
Alright, I'll yield on the point of not needing cites for some.
(@ Box O'Truth) To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a look (at the Box O'Truth website), you'll see it's organised with "Before" and "After" pictures and each step is explained an illustrated. I'm not entirely sure how you'd expect "This is a .303 British cartridge. This is it being fired into a jug of water. This is the bullet after we pulled it out. Note how it has deformed in this way" to be fact-checked, to be honest. FWIW, I did, however, find a reference in the 1929 War Office Textbook of Small Arms (p.364) to the fact that spitzer (pointed) bullets were believed to be even more effective at tumbling on impact than non-spitzer rounds ("Observation of wounds of exit confirms the fact that the pointed bullet does turn in the tissues; moreover, the increased wounding power of this [FMJ spitzer; presumably the Mk VII projectile] bullet on soft parts as compared with the neat cylindrical track of the Mark II [Lead round-nose]] bullet seems to show that some enhancing factor is present.") At the very least, I believe that corroborates the Box O'Truth's article, and vice-versa. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then double-cite it (i.e. <ref>Box O' Truth</ref><ref>1929</ref>)
I still don't feel comfortable supporting, even though I am conceding the point about not needing cites for some. Sorry... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still very grateful for the help. Anything else specifically about the article that makes you uncomfortable about recommending it for A-class? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It's stuff like this that makes me uncomfortable - the ref format isn't terrible, but that sort of stuff has got to be cited...it's not common sense! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact the information is correct as I have personally seen rifles which have been converted from .303 to 7.7x54mm and then back to .303 (SMLE and No. 4 rifles with 7.7x54mm Calibre stamped on barrel, XXXd out, re-stamped ".303". These same rifles will chamber and fire a .303 round, which a 7.7x54mm calibre rifle will not do.) It is interesting that I can't find a print cite to that effect, though. I will, however, add a reference to the existence of the legislation restricting .303 rifles in NSW from the 50's-70's.Commander Zulu (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I have is this (taken from WP:V): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." While I believe you that that info is perfectly true, I can't support the article in good conscience. =/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try newspaper archives for that (i.e. smaller ones, then look for hunters that killed something with that gun maybe?)? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got me thinking about that (potential sources) so I went looking through my magazine archive and found a copy of the Australian Shooter's Journal (official publication of the Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia) from February 1998, which had a number of articles from shooters talking about what shooting was like in 1948 (1998 was the SSAA's 50th Anniversary). The articles included a lot of information on the various SMLE conversions- and a reference to the guns being converted back to .303 in the late 1970s. Hurrah! Commander Zulu (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and provided a reference for every single paragraph in the article. What exactly am I supposed to use instead of a hyphen? And don't you think objecting on those grounds is being just a wee bit petty? I mean, come on, you're objecting because of the use of hyphens? Commander Zulu (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ENDASH. Date and page ranges (i.e. 19–20 June) should use the bloody things. To type one, just type this: – (look at the edit screen for the text) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell comes up with this stuff? IMHO the "endash" and the hyphen look exactly the same. AGH! Am I just wasting my time trying to improve this article, or what? Why is this being made so difficult? Commander Zulu (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS has always been around in one form or another, you would be surprised on the number of things that it dictates. Anyway, we are not trying to make it difficult, we are trying to improve the article to meet the guidelines. Being bumped up to A-Class requires the article to meet our A-Class criteria, and all of those comments are linked to the criteria. I have done the dashes and ampersands for you, but please take on board the reviews instead of getting frustrated. We are all here to help you. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't let the whole thing frustrate me so much. I do appreciate everyone's help and I'm very grateful for it! I just find the MOS requirements so mind-bogglingly petty; I mean, if I turned in an essay at university and the lecturer failed me because I'd used the wrong type of hyphen, I'd be straight over to the course convenor's office and you can bet the lecturer would be told to pull their head out of their backside and pass the essay (assuming everything else was OK). That's what's bothering me here- the article is well-written, the facts are referenced, and people are blocking promotion to A-class because the wrong type of hyphen or dash or whatever has been used in the article? I'm afraid to even try and go for FA in case people decide the article is written in the wrong font or something. :p Commander Zulu (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration, but these things don't happen automatically, sometimes they take a lot of work to meet the little guidelines. I have never seen an FA fail simply because of MOS concerns, it doesn't happen; someone will fix it if the nominator cannot find or understand the issues. Prose is a different topic though. Before any attempt at FAC I stongly suggest a copy-editor go through the article. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm going to be out of town for a few days (most likely without internet access), so if I don't respond to people or implement suggestions, it's not because I've gone off in a huff or I'm ignoring people. I will, however, be making some suggestions about the A-class requirements when I get back, as I think it's an area that merits greater discussion. But, in the meantime, a few days away from it all will be a nice break, I think. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel - I've spent more time on Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive just doing the formatting and MOS stuff than actually adding information and references...A lot of it seems rather petty to me as well, but trying to get it changed would take even more time than just abiding by it. – Joe Nutter 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's been 5 days... where to from here? Commander Zulu (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The lead should be either completely uncited, with all citations in the text, or completely cited. Some points in the lead are not cited, such as the list of countries that use it, that should be.
  • Watch linking; I notice that the Lee-Metford is linked three times in the first four paragraphs.
  • "presumably due to familiarity with the design and ease of production," Needs a cite so it isn't WP:OR.
  • I think this passage has been remove? Couldn't find it again. – Joe Nutter 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pattern 1914/US M1917 section, use {{main}}. I believe there's a way to make it display links to two different articles.
  • The second paragraph in Charlton Automatic Rifle, the first and second in Conversion to 7.62x51mm NATO, the first in Ishapore 2A/2A1, the second and sixth in Production and Manufactures, the second in The Lee-Enfield in military/police use today, the second infobox,
  • I've added fact tags to stuff I'd still like to see cites for. – Joe Nutter 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the last paragraph in the Ishapore section seems to be slightly unencyclopedic. It sounds more like a gun owner's manual than an encyclopedia, and should be reworded or removed.
  • Better, could still use a wee bit of improvement. – Joe Nutter 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially in the Production and Manufacture section there are a lot of very short paragraphs, which should be combined.
  • It could use a copy-edit for flow and organization.
  • Nearly every image is on the right, please more some to the left. If possible, position images so that the gun points at the text, unless this would cause extreme inbalance.
  • Again in the section on Khyber Pass Copies, it sounds like a gun owner's manual, giving advice on what to do with them.
  • "design still in official service,[6];" Only one punctuation, and that before the ref.
  • "due to the rifle being common in the Middle East and South Asia, and are still manufactured in the Khyber Pass region today" Awkward, please rephrase.
  • "but as to whether the SMLEs in question are of British or Indian manufacture" Reword please.
  • And the final paragraph also goes in to gun owner's manual.
It does need a fair amount of work to correct these problems, but it appears to be a very complete article, so once they are done and the MOS/Dash question is settled it'll be ready. – Joe Nutter 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions; I have implemented most of them. What did you mean by "The second paragraph in the Charlton Automatic Rifle..." comment? It doesn't make any sense, I'm afraid... Commander Zulu (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. Those paragraphs have information after the last citation in them that needs cited. – Joe Nutter 01:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think all of those issues have been addressed now... Everyone happy? :) Commander Zulu (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See comments interspersed above. Almost there... – Joe Nutter 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's better. Now ready for my support. Good job! – Joe Nutter 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - wow. Just wow. It's like night and day! :-) Zulu, great work improving this, and I hope to see it at FAC sometime soon. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed! That means a lot to me. :) Now we just have to wait for some other people to come and agree with us. :p Commander Zulu (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, Ed? If you are supporting this article now, you should probably strike your oppose above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe that all of the image licensing should be clear and that the data in the infobox, such as effective range, should also be noted in the article text, but I believe that these don't hold the article back from meeting the A-class criteria. These concerns aside, this is obviously a richly detailed, complete, and well-written article. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Comments:[reply]
  • I couldn't find a link to the statement, or a copy of the author's statement, giving permission for this, this, and this copyrighted images to be used.
The first two pictures were uploaded some years ago by someone who gave me permission to do so and supplied the photos; I'll have to see if I kept the original E-mail (it was some years ago). As for the third one; have a look at the image Author. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the copyright clear for this image? I couldn't tell if the uploader owned the picture or not. This image, for example, makes it clear that the copyright is clear.
Fair comment; FWIW it seems to be above board to me. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you plan on nominating this article for FA or not, but lately the FA reviewers have been very strict about clear image licensing. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see much information about the range, accuracy, and penetration power of the rifle and/or the ammunition it typically uses. I also didn't see much critique of how reliable the rifle or its variants were under differing operating conditions (tropical, desert, cold weather, salt water, etc). Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that stuff either comes under "Original Research" and is disallowed, or is strongly implied and backed up with the appropriate sources; the design is obviously fairly solid or it wouldn't still be in use by the Canadian Rangers and the Indian Military and Police. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any reliable information anywhere on the Lee-Enfield's range? The M-16 rifle, for example, made it clear in its requirement specifications that the round had to maintain faster-than-sound speed for at least 500 yards. Thus, it's effective range is implied to be around that distance. (Personal note/orginal research- when I went through US Army basic training I must have heard, "The effective range of your M16 is 500 yards" a hundred times.) Surely, someone, somewhere has stated what the Lee-Enfield's usual, effective range was. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-read. Yes, there's plenty of info on that; effective range is about 500-600 yards and the maximum effective range is 1000 yards. The sights are graduated to 2000 yards on an SMLE, but it's nearly impossible to see the target at that range IME. There's already a cite for the effective range in the infobox, FWIW. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Lee–Enfield/archive1&oldid=1136426329"