From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To do list[change source]

Partial to-do list:
  1. Turn all red links blue
    Done04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  2. Check accuracy for all references, then add the "retrieved" date for the current day for all references.
  • Done 04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These are just two things I noticed, there will probably be more. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the ref publishers are redlinks; either go ahead and create them, or delink. (At a glance, stuff like The Sun probably deserves an article.)
    • Done. 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, make sure all the refs have publishers noted, and an access date if they're online. (The second column does this mostly, the first column not so much.)
    • Done. 05:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "and are experts in the use of camouflage" - I'd go even simpler and have something like "and are very good at using camouflage"
    • Done 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Many police departments have special snipers on their SWAT team." - is it worth stating in the lead why they're special snipers? (And what the difference is)
    • Removed, it was just referencing the elite nature of snipers, that's already well referenced elsewhere. Didn't need duplication. 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "and sniping developed from "hunting snipe", birds that were very hard to see and hit" - the "hunting snipe" is the bird's name (not fully clear, for me at least)? Change "were" to "are" (unless they're extinct).
    • Done. Snipe is the birds name. Snipe still exist, but "were" is the correct terminology since the development of the etymology existed in the past, not the present. (They still "are" very hard to see, but also at the time referenced in the question, they "were" hard to see.) SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because they are very well trained and usually very smart" - I'd leave it at well trained; the very smart bit is a bit subjective and the source talks more about the skills developed through training.
    • They're required to pass various mental tests, as noted in the references. Therefore, it's not actually subjective. 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "such as the U.S. Marine Corps" - should that have an article?
    • Already linked in the picture caption at the top.04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • wikt:compensate doesn't exist (it's linked to in the accuracy section)
    • Delinked. 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "This propels them very fast" - use a simpler verb... "makes them go", maybe?
    • Fixed. 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The Sniper rifles section lacks sourcing.
    • Fixed05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • for the uninitiated; what's a ".50 caliber machine gun"? (needs linking). This section is all a bit more technical, so you need to be careful with that.
    • Simplified and linked05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please look over the changes I made and check if there are any problems with them.

Looking pretty good, and resolving these should bring it up to GA standards, for mine. Giggy (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giggy. All but one of the changes were implemented. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)[change source]

  • Consider increasing the size of the lead image - it's good and provides a decent context for what the article is about. en-wiki MOS says up to 300px.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is "target" simple enough to not be linked?
    • Yes.
  • "very sneaky " - not particularly encyclopedic - I'd opt for stealthy and link it.
    • Was changed. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "They are also specially trained to be very sneaky and hard for the enemy to see when they are hiding, and are experts in the use of camouflage." - sentence is probably one clause too long for my liking - full stop after hiding and then "They are experts..."
    • Rewritten05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "special snipers " what makes them special? Do you just mean they have snipers?
    • Special deleted, was redundant. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is being a hunter necessarily a job? And is it simple enough to not be linked?
    • It is for many, or as an avocation. Job is about as simple of a word as I can use to describe it. And yes, hunter is simple enough.05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "hunting snipe" do you mean that the "snipe" was a name for a bird that was hard to hunt? Needs clarification.
  • Should add a link under the "hunting snipe" bit to to explain the difference so that people don't get confused.
    • Fixed already05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "see and hit" - hit is not being used in its primary usage (i.e. to strike with the hand) so perhaps replace with shoot.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider linking US Marine Corps in the caption.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Move sniper/spotter image up so it doesn't leak over section boundary.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "as scouts for the army.[3]They " space(s) required after the citation.
    • Space is there. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "scopes " definitely needs explanation or linking.
    • Linked, sentence itself explains what they do. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "very smart" -> smart is ambiguous - try clever?
    • Clever is not the intended meaning of the word in this usage. It's literally used here to mean both "intelligent" and "good memory, ability to notice things, etc."05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, smart
  • "other units," what are units in this context? it's not clear.
    • changed to "military units"05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "sniper can't hurt" avoid contractions - cannot.
    • Fixed05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "200-300 " use an en-dash, not a hyphen for these ranges.
    • Replaced with "to" since I can't figure out how to make an en-dash.05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Use the {{convert}} template for those of us who still use imperial measurements - i.e. convert to feet.

**I don't know how to do this. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

      • Have you tried reading the page about it? It's very simple. If you're stuck, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I forgot there's manuals on the template pages now.03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "U.S. Marine Corps" or "US Marine Corps" - be consistent.
    • Changed. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "higher than normal" not really, not higher than normal - he aims higher to compensate for the distance in all circumstances.
    • Not correct. At short ranges, due to parabolic trajectory, a typical soldier's weapon sights are set lower than normal because the bullet is above the direct line to the target. At ranges a sniper typically fires, this point is well past, and the rifle's scope is aimed higher than the direct line to the target. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • gunpowder - worth linking?
    • Yes, linked 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "propels " not simple.
    • Fixed. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "wind.[13][12] " list citations numerically where there's not a good reason not to.
    • Done in both places it was like that. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • " seen in enemy territory" they don't need to be in enemy territory to not want to be seen.
    • Removed 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And is territory simnple?
    • N/A, removed. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And observers ?
    • Simplified. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "These things are " These items are..?
    • They are the things mentioned literally right before it. Items is more complex than Things. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "from the criminal" from an enemy - keep the context the same as for military snipers.
    • Context is not the same. Police don't have enemies. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • semi-automatic links to a disambiguation page.
    • Done05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ammunition - needs linking.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • and "machine gun "
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "bolt action" or "bolt-action" - be consistent.
    • Done, but keep in mind they are two different things. Without the hyphen it is referring to the "action" (an action is a part in the rifle) itself, with the hyphen it is referring to the style of action used.05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Link trigger?
    • Linked 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain what BMG is and what .22 and .5 mean.
    • Mentioned already in the same sentence after caliber.05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I still can't see where you explain what BMG stands for. And you could explain that .22 and .5 are measurements in inches. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewritten and clarified. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain/link SWAT.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the See also's - you def don't need Reconnaissance since that's linked already with the {{main}} template, infantry and commando I'm really not sure are directly relevant.
    • They're relevant since they're the type of people that use snipers. Recon removed.05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • References need accessdate and any redlinks fixing.
    • Done 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 needs its ISO date converting to English.
    • It is. 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Ok, how do I do this? I thought YYYY-MM-DD was the standard? It's properly recognized by Cite Web, and I'm not seeing what's different about it than any of the other references?03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
ThanksSWATJester Son of the Defender 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping track of the above notes/changes; I've got a RL project I'll be working on through Thurs or Fri., when it's done I can begin implementing them. SWATJester Son of the Defender

All changes either implemented or explained. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments - I've responded to a few comments above, but some more here...[change source]

  • Remove spaces between punctuation and citations.
    • Done03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • stealth appears to link to a disambiguation page.
    • Linked to Wiktionary instead.03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "sound suppressor " is not simple.
    • It's explained.03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • silencer should be linked or have an article, it'd fit nicely with things like the sniper scope article etc.
    • Silencer is a misnomer, sound suppressor would end up with the article.03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Red link scope in the Scouting section should be fixed.
    • Fixed. 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • " animals. [23]The " remove space before, add space after citation.
  • assassinate redirects to murder which really isn't good enough. It doesn't explain what assassination is, so I'd write a new article for it and remove the redirect.
    • For the context that it is used in, it's actually a perfect definition, even if it doesn't quite adequately explain assassination, it is still technically correct for the purpose used. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of your refs say "Retrieved on (wikilinked date)" and others say "Accessed (unwikilinked date)" - they need to be consistent.
    • See next item below. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Date formats are inconsistent too e.g. ref 21 has an accessdate "4 May 2008" and a publication date of "September 6, 2007" - you should check the rest.
    • Changed. That's the only one that had an inconsistency within itself. With regard to the Accessed vs. Retrieved, I can change the word, but I don't know how to make the date automatically link and format itself consistently with the others. Do you know how to fix that? 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't need to link the date automatically. However, if you wish to do so, I'd check out Jessica Alba's article - the references there, as far as I recall, are formatted correctly - it's a VGA after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes a reliable source?
    • is one of the most heavily trafficed and widely used "sites of first resort" for general firearms information. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source? And that link 404's for me anyway.
    • I think they're having a database error, since it can find when the page was created. I'll find another site, it was merely a reprint of a widely held world record. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
    • It is an appropriate and accurate independent source on the chinese QBU series of rifles.03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What's 9780312336516 in ref 6? You've already put the isbn in...
    • It's an alternative ISBN, go to and type it in and it takes you to the book. Maybe another SKU or something. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You have several references you've accessed in the future, e.g. 12 to 14, 16 to 18...
    • I don't understand what you're saying here. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The etymology link is okay, but the actual snipe link there doesn't work. It also discusses the first use of the term, British in India in 1773 and first ref to sharp shooting in 1824 - worth including in this article since you're talking about the derivation of the term.
    • Eh? It works fine for me. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The link which goes to the general "S" page is fine, the link from there to the snipe article doesn't work - the reference is titled incorrectly - the page isn't called "snipe", if anything it's "snail to snout". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, you could discuss the fact that a lot of sniping is referred to as sharp shooting.
    • Mistakenly. Sharpshooting is more accurately associated with "dedicated marksman". Sniping involves beyond just the accuracy component, but also the fieldcraft component, camoflauge, tactics etc. "sharp shooting" refers to merely accurate shooting, typically by a common infantry soldier. 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[change source]

  • "to quickly and quietly break " - how does the suppressor make it do it "quickly"? And any reason why snipers are shooting vermin?
  • I still don't see a definition of BMG - isn't it Browning Machine Gun?  Done--Chenzw  Talk  09:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it hits. [5] " remove space between punc and cite.  Done--Chenzw  Talk  06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trigger links to a disambiguation page.  Done--Chenzw  Talk  09:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "human sized " should be hyphenated.  Done--Chenzw  Talk  06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2657 -> 2,657  Done--Chenzw  Talk  06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 has similar problem with ISO date being displayed.  Done--Chenzw  Talk  09:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this should've all been put on the talk page, not filling this page. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the not using the talk page instead. Anyway, since it doesn't look like further improvement requests are forthcoming, can we go ahead and vote on VGA status? SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC) User:henkdeleeuw 21:14 23 February 2009 (UTC) The article starts with: "A sniper is a soldier in an army". But: "Many police departments have snipers on their SWAT teams.". Are those soldiers in an army as well? If not, I think the first line should be changed.[reply]

A sniper can be someone not within an army...[change source]

A sniper is a soldier in an army. They are given special training with sniper rifles. Snipers are able to shoot at targets which are very far away, or are very small, and hit them accurately when looking through a sniper scope. They are also especially trained to be stealthy and hard for the enemy to see when they are hidden or using camouflage.

Often experienced hunters share many of the skills that snipers need to know because the two jobs are very similar. The word "sniper" came from hunting "snipe" - birds that were very hard to see and shoot.[1]

Many police departments have snipers on their SWAT teams.[2] Because police snipers do not always perform the same tasks as military snipers, police snipers are sometimes known as "marksmen".

Okay now police departments aren't army...Any according to the army article it's a part of the country's military...Well you know you can be a sniper in a game of paintball (Just for an example). A terrorist can be a sniper against the army...

A sniper is a person who has been given special training with sniper rifles. Snipers are able to shoot at targets which are very far away, or are very small, and hit them accurately when looking through a sniper scope. They are also especially trained to be stealthy and hard for the enemy to see when they are hidden or using camouflage.

Seems a little more accurate...I will change it, if anyone objects please post here. It looks like an unsigned user noticed this...Well hopefully no one objects. (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that snipers are not just in the army; there's also the US Marines, Royal Marines, the SEALS, the SAS and the SBS, oh and the police :) fr33kman t - c 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snipers are well known for their propensity for angelfish. - I lol'd. I went to fix it, but by the time the page loaded, it'd already been reverted. God bless wikignomes. (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy thinking[change source]

The intro demonstrates it to a truly remarkable degree. I ask the question-

What is a sniper?

The answer I am given here is:

A sniper is a person who has been given special training with sniper rifles, a special type of gun. Snipers are able to shoot at targets which are very far away, or are very small, and hit them accurately when looking through a sniper scope.

This is total nonsense. The editor who wrote it and the editors who passed it as a good article all need to asxk themselves the question -

What is a sniprer?

Patently, a sniper is not a person trained to use a certain gun. A sniper is not a person who can hit targets accurately when looking at them through a sniperscope. Sniper rifles and sniperscopes are made for snipers. They do not define what a sniper is or what they do.

A sniper is a sniper, regardless of the gun that they are using, and regardless of whether they are employing a telescopic sight or their own unassisted vision.

Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say snipers were defined by their gun. Without their specialised rifles they would cease to be snipers. If you define them as people who can aim at something very far away and hit it accurately, they need certain precise equipment to do this. What would you propose as an alternate definition of a sniper? -- (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper bullets can violate the laws of physics?[change source]

I noticed the following sentences in the section labeled "Sniping":

The speed makes the bullet less affected by gravity. A fast bullet reaches a target quicker, before it has time for gravity to affect it.

In all my physics classes and any science class I took after 6th grade, we learned that gravity was not affected by velocity. No matter how fast an object is traveling it will still take the same amount of time to fall a given distance. In fact, if you were able to drop a bullet at the precise time that you fired a bullet out of a gun pointing level, they would both his the ground at the same time.

I believe the writer was correct in there assumption, but not in their statement. While gravity is not affected by velocity, a faster bullet will travel farther before drops too far, and you will not have to provide as much elevation to your aiming. So, the sentences just need to be changed to not lead anyone not familiar with velocity and ground to think those statements are true as written. --Tenn9fan (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback and close attention! Since you seem to know more about the subject than I do, I am hesitant to make the change lest I make it worse than it already is. Would you care to do the rewording? Regards, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAD comments[change source]

What makes any of the following reliable:

  • Gizmodo
  • How Stuff Works

Specifically, what makes something with the title "Badass Sniper Cleanly Shoots the Gun Out Of A Crazy Mans Hand" reliable?

  • Above concern over physics needs addressing.
  • On my computer/browser, the "Snipers in popular culture" section, the heading is off because of the photo in the section above. Suggest moving the photo to the right.
  • Snipers are often used in video games as elite soldiers. What?
  • The photos "sandwich" the text under the "Snipers in World War I and II" heading. Remove a photo.
  • October 2002 two men went on a month long killing spree "Killing spree"? Rather, ...In October 2002, two men killed ten people using a sniper rifle in the Virginia and Maryland area.
  • Photos need alt text
  • Other websites and remaining references need {{citeweb}} format.
  • examples include Phone Booth and Vantage Point.[32][33]. double period
  • Delink dates in refs, while remaining consistent in dating usage.
  • They are powered by a large amount of gunpowder. reword powdered
  • Very well trained soldiers, such as the U.S. Marine Corps, can hit a target that is between 400 metres (1,312 ft) to 500 metres (1,640 ft) away, with approximately half of their shots. POV Very well trained soldiers, such as the U.S. Marine Corps, violates enWP WP:YESPOV, point Avoid stating opinions as facts. I'd suggest removing the sentence.

Since I'm an inherently good person, I'll hold off on proposing this at WP:PAD until the Nickel Creek article is demoted, so that, on the slim chance anyone saves Nickel Creek, they'll have time for this article as well. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your sign-off as being "an inherently good person" is the best thing I've seen on the internet in a good while. No doubt you are, and your confidence in your self-declaration makes it so much better. Well done for holding off. Good call. And now PAD awaits! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second (third?) the inherently good. Thank you for waiting, even though in this case there is no way I can even try to save this. I would have no idea where to even begin on those sources. Gotanda (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance of GA and VGA lists[change source]

As part of maintenance efforts for the list of VGAs and GAs, the article's promotion and demotion details were updated and the following noted for general information:

  • At the time of this article's demotion, there was no process for the demotion of VGAs to GAs. As such, this article was demoted directly from a VGA to a regular article. Chenzw  Talk  06:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]