187:
I have the impression that wikipedia is running out of
Featured Articles (I think someone has actually said as much) - hence having 2 articles in the last year about that tedious US technical college (one was its stupid car and there was a more recent one I think about its football team or something
165:
It's very difficult to understand the background / context in which this engagement arose either from the summary or introduction at the beginning or from the main text of the article. The article seems to assume a considerable level of existing knowledge and that slightly defeats the purpose of an
83:
However, in the
Aftermath section, it is said that the cannon is now in a museum and has passed scientific authentication tests. So, presumably the composition of the camera is certain. Perhaps also, the construction of the cannon (Spanish-made?) is certain. How do we resolve these discrepencies?
34:
The flag displayed next to the article is an SVG illustration, not a photo. Compared with the photo further down the page, the illustration's font and cannon graphic seem to be incorrect. Is there an authentic photo of the original flag? Or are these all merely guesses based on a historical
73:
There seems to be some confusion in the narrative about the composition of the cannon. Is the narrative trying to say that the construction and composition of the cannon is uncertain? Or, is the narrative trying to say that memory and speculation about the cannon has been cloudy over time?
236:
JUst read the article, and couldn't agree less with the anonymous ip. Easy to understand, and the nice blue links above the sections even allow you to explore the other subjects if you can't be arsed to think.
188:... Jesus*). Today's so-called Featured Article is certainly further evidence that the whole project is going hastily down the U-bend wrapped up in a single sheet of double ply bog roll.
166:
encyclopedia I would have thought. Personally I know nothing about the conflict between Texas and Mexico but that means that this article is more or less incomprehensible.
117:
169:
The underlying problem is that the subject matter of the article is so boring. I haven't checked but I suspect that the number of contributors is few.
139:
Here is a resource that discusses the scientific and historical investigation of the cannon that is presently housed in the
Gonzales Memorial Museum:
211:
I don't think the background section is that hard to understand. Besides, if the Texan-Mexican conflict is that incomprehensible, you can always read
80:"...was probably a Spanish-made, bronze artillery piece of six-pound caliber, although a history written in 1900 identifies it as made of iron."
103:
Here is a good summary of the pros and cons regarding the authenticity of the cannon presently housed in the
Gonzales Memorial Museum:
192:
222:
As for whether something is boring or interesting... that is an extremely subjective topic and probably shouldn't be discussed here.
219:. This is just about one battle in the war, which usually assumes a level of pre-existing knowledge about the war.
196:
17:
59:
94:
172:
One solution would be for wikipedia editors to concentrate on articles about popular tv shows such as
227:
151:
130:
242:
36:
55:
216:
90:
246:
231:
223:
200:
155:
134:
98:
63:
44:
40:
147:
126:
206:
I have just had a look: it's
Georgia Institute of Technology; can't find the second FA
238:
212:
106:
54:
In the box, it says one Texan was wounded, but in the article it is not mentioned.
184:. No doubt this is where wikipedia's real contribution to human knowledge lies.
177:
173:
181:
143:
Rx Take One Cannon: The
Gonzales Come & Take It Cannon of October, 1835
145:. Patrick J. Wagner Research & Publishing Co., Shiner TX 1981.
77:In the Battle section, it is said that the cannon:
8:
7:
118:"Gonzales' Come and Take It Cannon"
24:
141:Jane Bradfield, Douglas Kubicek.
114:. For additional information:
1:
215:(as the article suggests) or
107:"Fate of the Gonzales Cannon"
64:23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
69:Cannon Composition Confusion
247:11:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
232:18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
201:17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
156:05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
135:04:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
99:02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
265:
180:and such like, oh yes and
45:22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
18:Talk:Battle of Gonzales
105:Wallace L. McKeehan.
161:Oh dear! this is bad
116:Norman Conquest.
256:
217:Texan Revolution
146:
124:
122:
113:
111:
264:
263:
259:
258:
257:
255:
254:
253:
163:
140:
120:
115:
109:
104:
71:
52:
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
262:
260:
252:
251:
250:
249:
220:
208:
207:
162:
159:
70:
67:
51:
48:
31:
28:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
261:
248:
244:
240:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
214:
213:Mexican Texas
210:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
189:
185:
183:
179:
175:
170:
167:
160:
158:
157:
153:
149:
144:
137:
136:
132:
128:
119:
108:
101:
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
75:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
49:
47:
46:
42:
38:
29:
27:
19:
193:90.216.34.86
190:
186:
171:
168:
164:
142:
138:
102:
89:
86:
82:
79:
76:
72:
56:Cloudbreath9
53:
50:Casualities?
33:
25:
91:Carl Gusler
224:Brutannica
178:South Park
174:Family Guy
182:Star Wars
148:Vereverde
127:Vereverde
35:account?
239:Skinny87
191:Discuss
87:Thanks,
30:SVG Flag
121:(html)
110:(html)
37:Loqui
16:<
243:talk
228:talk
197:talk
152:talk
131:talk
95:talk
60:talk
41:talk
245:)
230:)
199:)
176:,
154:)
133:)
125:.
97:)
62:)
43:)
241:(
226:(
195:(
150:(
129:(
123:.
112:.
93:(
58:(
39:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.