Template:Did you know nominations/Grouping (firearms)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by ~ RobTalk 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Grouping (firearms)[edit]
A grouping of shots on target
- ... that a grouping of shots (pictured) on a target has a mean point of impact?
Created by Binksternet (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
-
Article started on 5 August and nominated for DYK on 8 August, so new enough, and at 3,296 characters long enough. No copyvio detected with Earwig, AGF since the sources are offline books. Well sourced with inline citations. Impeccable referencing! All images are ok with the right license. The editor have thoughtfully provided the DYK with a new version of the main pic that renders well in small size. Article is neutral, interesting, accurate and to the point. (pardon the very bad puns...) AGF for source for the hook, which is funny, catchy with it's double meaning and the right length. A very nice article, the only very slight problem I have with it is actually it's name: "Grouping (firearms)", since the article also includes archery. Yes, you can fire away an arrow, but does bows and arrows really fall under the firearms category? Shouldn't the article be under a "wider" definition like "Grouping (target practice)", "Grouping (shooting)" or something? Or is this a discussion more suitable for the article's talk page? Thoughts? Best, w.carter-Talk 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, W.carter, I agree that the "firearms" in parentheses is a problem; I had assumed the topic would be all about firearms but then a bunch of archery references showed up in my Google searches, so I incorporated them. I would like to make sure that whatever new name is chosen is a good, solid name, so that the article doesn't get moved more than once. I have some hesitancy about Grouping (shooting) because of the rhyme. Perhaps Group (shooting) could work, though "group" means a lot more things than "grouping", so the title is less clear. How about Shot grouping, which is already a redirect? Shot grouping would be appropriate if archers can say they are taking shots, which I think is true. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
A grouping of shots on target
- Also, the Russian-language version of the topic has another possible image, one made in the SVG format so that it scales better, without getting fuzzy. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand that you don't want to induce some kind of move circus. Shot grouping sound good to my ears, since archers are "shooting" as well. Unless some linguist have a better idea. Do you want to make bold move right away or do you want to take a break and discuss the matter further on the article's talk page first?
About the second pic. Yes, it cleaner and scales better, but it is also too perfect, clinical and exceedingly boring. I much prefer the "live" one from an actual series of shots. But we can leave that as an option for the promoter. I also took the liberty of upgrading the File:Shot grouping on target.jpg with a slightly better quality (=less fuzziness) pic in the Commons. You may have to refresh your cache to see the difference. Please revert in Commons if you don't like it. w.carter-Talk 08:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for tweaking the first pic, W.carter! I have moved the article to Shot grouping, and I poked at the text a bit more. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Great! But with the additional text the article has become a bit "top heavy". The lead is almost as long as the rest of the article. What do you say to keeping only the first section of the lead (the one ending with the two refs) and simply create a new section called "Grouping" for the three following (the ones with the links firearms, shotgun and archery)? I think the article would look more stylish that way. The sections would have to have a ref at the end, but I guess you can double one of the existing refs for that. You can try it out and see what you think. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: To clarify: It's not a deal breaker, I just wanted to run it by you before ticking this review as done. ;) w.carter-Talk 17:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, let's see what you think of my solution. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: To clarify: It's not a deal breaker, I just wanted to run it by you before ticking this review as done. ;) w.carter-Talk 17:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Great! But with the additional text the article has become a bit "top heavy". The lead is almost as long as the rest of the article. What do you say to keeping only the first section of the lead (the one ending with the two refs) and simply create a new section called "Grouping" for the three following (the ones with the links firearms, shotgun and archery)? I think the article would look more stylish that way. The sections would have to have a ref at the end, but I guess you can double one of the existing refs for that. You can try it out and see what you think. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
