Talk:.30-06 Springfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .30-06 Springfield article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

.30-06 Springfield was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 23, 2007

Contents 1 Picture 2 References 3 GA review 4 Weight and FPE 5 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit] Picture

Why is there a picture of a .303 British shell on the .30-06 Springfield article? It should be explained that the picture is of a contemporary but different cartridge.

Disregard, it turns out the same picture is used on most (all?) rifle cartridge pages. I don't know enough about templates, or I'd do this myself, but it'd be nice if someone put an indication in the caption that the picture is not of the cartridge the article focuses on.

• Could someone provide a picture of this round next to a different round for scale? Possibly next to a .308 round, as the fact that they are different rounds with the same caliber can cause some confusion. Bad ideas 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu26.htm scroll down to the bottom of the page and the .308 is on the right and the .30-06 is on the right

This is a good idea, but I want to say that there shouldn't be any confusion from them being the "same." .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester are obviously different when written in the English/Standard system and in the Metric system (7.62x63mm Springfield and 7.62x51mm NATO respectively). -- Thatguy96 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a picture but the .308 is a lot shorter the the .30-06. and the first sentence is weird, because the metric "name" for .308 is 7.62x51

[edit] References

Lots of good info in this article, but it lacks citations. We need to find references and annotate the article as appropriate. Arthurrh 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I've failed the GA for a few reasons. The most obvious reason I found was that it was vastly undercited, particularly in the performance section. The "Cartridge dimensions" section will do better as a thumbnail picture. Try to also convert one or two of the bulleted lists into prose. Although there aren't any examples of ammunition GA's, you might want to look at M1 Garand, which is quite well written and cited. All in all, some more work should be done to improve the article to GA status. If you have any questions, please ask me. If you'd like to contest my decision, head to WP:GAR. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight and FPE

Those weights aren't right. I know for a fact that the don't make 9.7 grain 30/06 rounds.....That's way too light to have that much FPE. I thing someone forgot a couple of zero's or converted to grams.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.141.57 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)