Talk:Type 94 Nambu pistol

I removed unsourced material about the design flaw

I have deleted an unsourced paragraph from this article which claimed that the well-known problem with the sear bar "may have been intentional" - a claim I've never heard outside this article. If you re-add this material, please give one or more references for it. Of course, the whole article is unreferenced at the moment, but that's a separate problem ... Gavia immer 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional discussion by a noob user: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.39.4 (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the worry and stories over the transfer bar are greatly exagerated. To depress the bar far enough to release the hammer, you really have to push hard on a very small area that is already slightly depressed. It is not that easy, and the odds of it happening by randomly banging the pistol, or falling on it are very, very slim. I will agree that it is not that great of a design, but not nearly as bad as people who have never handled on might think.

I also do not agree with the idea that the round is under-powered. It is not as powerful as modern rounds, but in the early 20th century, cartridges in the .32 ACP class were considered to be more than adequate for an officer's handgun. -C. Racciato

Whether you agree or not, if you can't cite a source or back up your claims, it's your personal beliefs, not fact. As for being underpowered, the industrial ability of Japan was seriously crippled by the bombings of their factories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.0.203 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether the specific issue at hand is true or not, I don't know, but if one is serious about removing unsourced material, I would advice them to nominate the article for deletion as not a single word of it is, in any way, sourced.172.191.214.119 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Type 94 Nambu pistol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: Type 94 Nambu pistol points back to the title, please fix.
• Reference check: No issues obviously.

Comments: The article checks out pretty well for the prose, the mos and reflayout. It is made entirely of book sources that are reliable sources and I see no original research here. The article is pretty broad, but is there no information about the accuracy of the pistol? The lead also contains information not seen in the body of the article, including the number of pistols which is different in the infobox than in the lead. The ammo used is not discussed properly and some of the details are only mentioned in the infobox as a result. These issues need to be rectified to reach the GA criteria. Though there is also one sentence which I think the "This" should be "There was a" and a need for a comma in "This drastic change in quality from late March 1945, onwards with all standards appearing to disappear towards the end of June 1945." Also, could you please translate "TYPE94ERROR.JPG" because it is currently in Japanese. I don't think I have the skill yet to properly translate it myself. The article overall, is short and effective, but I'll place it on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note I went about seeing if I needed to translate the image previously and I don't. From what I understand about the translation it doesn't add any substantial information to the article and would need a fluent Japanese speaker to decipher some of the lesser used Kanji.--Molestash (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is English Wikipedia. It doesn't make much sense to have it in Japanese when few can read it. I was basing this on the fact it is not a poster, original release or copyrighted material, but it is instead an informational picture. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The picture shows the location of the sear bar and states on the caption that it shows the location of the sear bar that can cause the misfire. I am fairly confused why this would cause an issue. This is English Wikipedia and an English caption was provided.--Molestash (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Outsider here. Is the sear bar the red bar on the upper drawing or the yellow in the detail drawing below? Is that even a detail drawing below? I don't think this is as clear to an outsider as it is to someone who is already familiar with the topic, even though I am somewhat familiar with firearms. If that is a free image, I would suggest editing it to provide clear English labels. Canada Hky (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok I found a translator and added the corrected image to English Wikipedia. --Molestash (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A Few Things here,

• All information in the lead is now covered in the body of the article; Good Catching
• A section about disassembly was added for clarity and to further describe the weapons shortcomings
• The ammunition used is cited and link to the article about the ammunition thus not needing a section unto itself similar to the FA Webley Revolver. The reason behind the choice for the ammunition is clearly stated as a requirement of the Army and would go off topic if further discussed.
• Reliable information on accuracy is not readily available and subjective to the skill of the shooter thus fail WP:NOR
• A citation error was fixed
• I don't know if you want the muzzle velocity and iron cites talked about in the article itself but I would argue against it as the velocity would get too complex and talking about iron sights is sorta....dumb.

--Molestash (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything passes basic muster it seems. Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)