180:
and taller. Derby & Brown do however take an engineering approach and detail how the firing pin is weak and easy to break. The ability to shoot the pistol from the sear bars with just your hand is covered by all authors I have used/read (hence the picture and it's own paragraph). The inclusion of the sear bar problem in the luger, which I am unfamiliar with, would lose focus from the article. The Type 94 to my knowledge did not borrow design features from the Luger directly. When writing an article about pistols I feel you need to tread a light line about getting too technical and thus don't pound why something is a design flaw, just weapon authors indicate it as such. The decline very much has to do with the rush completion of the pistols and shortages in supply but they show the decline in production quality probably best of all weapons of WWII. You have to remember the
Japanese were getting ready to fight the allies using makeshift spears and original matchlock rifles to defend the home islands. They didn't have the stockpiles the Germans acquired and only started having a modern army 80 years earlier. The military industrial complex was also the weakest in Japan with natural resource scarce on the home islands and Japan cut from their factories in Manchuria and Korea. I have the same personal interest in early Japanese firearms and would agree that Westerners tend to be hostile towards Japanese weapons out of pseudo nationalism. --
167:* The sources in the article are good ones, so if that's where you've pulled this from I think it's more a matter of graceful writing than sourcing. Something along the lines of "Japanese weapons experts typically refer to the design of the Type 94 as overly complex and in some cases, dangerous". I would also make note of the fact that the decline in fit and finish/build quality over time had much to do with Japan's factories being destroyed and the need to crank out guns more quickly (all of the Axis countries and the USSR had the same issues with late war guns being more crude and sometimes poorly made). Additionally, the issue with the seer bar is present on the Luger, although it's protected more elegantly, it would be nice to mention this. I'm having some issues with Knowledge, not sure if it's my internet or the site is just slow, going to log out for now.
195:
able to come to this article and get all of the best ideas from the works cited. In addition to tightening up the prose I'm also thinking of ways to actually expand the article, somewhat. One thing you might consider is posting a request at the League of
Copyeditors to have the article reviewed by someone who is an experienced (and perhaps trained) editor rather than a writer who is into firearms. I wonder if the League are still around, it has been years since I checked. Even the best writers have editors who clean up and tighten their writing.
164:* Which of the cited sources specifically refer to it as poor design and bad quality? I know there are lots of gun boards and fan pages out there that like to make it out to be "the worst gun evaaarrr", but I think a lot of that is hyperbole and even racism, to some degree. Gun culture can be very cliquish, and I'm speaking as someone who is a part of it. I actually own a Type 94, it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. BUT;
133:
of them are sourced; while they are in the body, they are still heavily slanted and POV. Fourth, the writing itself contains a great deal of passive voice... things like "it is considered to be"... considered by whom? Passive voice is generally a sign of weak writing and an article that contains a lot of it is not GA material.
194:
I disagree with you on expanding somewhat on the specifics engineering and design flaws. If I were a casual reader or someone with an interest in old firearms who happened to read the article, I would want to know why the authors say the gun has engineering and design shortcomings. Readers should be
132:
was fixed. Second, the article has a fairly heavy POV slant and appears to be making a judgement call regarding whether this weapon was well-designed or not. Encyclopedic articles aren't supposed to do that. Third, the lede itself makes a number of POV claims that the gun is poorly designed and none
179:
Derby & Brown along with Kinard take a two fold approach. They've come to the conclusion that complaints
Western shooter make about the gun being too small and awkward to hold and fire are baseless because the weapons were made for the 5'4" Japanese soldier not the average Western Soldier 5'11"
146:
If it is highly sourced as a weapon of poor quality and design how is not to be presented as such? Do you want authors and experts quoted as calling it a poor weapon or removal of statements about quality
99:: It looks like Molestash has taken steps to improve the article following these concerns. No instant instant fail issue and closed as no consensus for delisting.
69:
208:
65:
50:
42:
17:
115:
218:
202:
189:
174:
156:
140:
121:
90:
58:
215:
199:
171:
137:
107:
35:
185:
152:
239:
212:
196:
168:
134:
101:
181:
148:
233:
85:
77:
46:
128:The article is not currently GA material. First,
8:
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
130:there's a glaring date conflict
86:Watch article reassessment page
1:
219:15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
203:05:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
190:01:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
175:03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
157:03:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
141:01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
256:
122:09:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
209:they are still around
28:Type 94 Nambu pistol
216:---)Vote Saxon(---
200:---)Vote Saxon(---
172:---)Vote Saxon(---
138:---)Vote Saxon(---
91:Most recent review
118:
110:
247:
211:. Worth a look!
116:
108:
104:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
246:
245:
244:
230:
229:
102:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
253:
251:
243:
242:
232:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
205:
165:
162:
126:
125:
124:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
252:
241:
238:
237:
235:
220:
217:
214:
210:
206:
204:
201:
198:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
178:
177:
176:
173:
170:
166:
163:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
136:
131:
123:
119:
114:
111:
105:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
129:
127:
112:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
161:Two points:
47:visual edit
213:The Master
197:The Master
169:The Master
147:overall?--
135:The Master
103:DragonZero
182:Molestash
149:Molestash
234:Category
117:Contribs
70:history
51:history
37:Article
240:GAR/60
97:Result
79:Watch
16:<
207:Ok,
186:talk
153:talk
109:Talk
66:edit
43:edit
236::
188:)
155:)
120:)
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
184:(
151:(
113:·
106:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.