Talk:Hardpoint (missile defense)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 21:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A HiBEX test shot.

• ... that as part of the Hardpoint missile defense system, ARPA developed missiles able to hit 377 g of acceleration with reaction times in milliseconds? Source: Reed
• ALT 1... that as part of the Hardpoint missile defense system, ARPA developed missiles able to hit almost 400 g of acceleration with reaction times in milliseconds? Source: Reed p3.1
  • Reviewed:

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 22:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hardpoint (missile defense); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Maury Markowitz: I'm really struggling with this DYK. There seems to be a huge amount of cross over with the subject discussed at Sprint_(missile) to the point where I'm wondering if this article is superfluous? and other than HAPDAR I'm struggling to confirm in any of the sources provided that confirms the name of the system as Hardpoint. Wondering if you might be able to provide any guidance? Seddon ^talk 03:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Seddon: I can't speak to the Sprint article, I'm not a primary author there. Given this was a completely different project, run by a different organization, built by different companies, with NOTE easily met, I'm not sure there's an issue to correct in this article. The Sprint article also talks about Thunderbird for some reason... the issue would appear to be on that side.

About the second part. If you mean "does the H in HAPDAR mean Hardpoint", then I would point to the IEEE article whose title is "Hardpoint Demonstration Array Radar" and there's any number of independent verifications like this one at MIT. But you mean "I can't verify this thing is called Hardpoint, I only see that in the title of the radar", then there are any number of independent works that verify it to one degree or another, including this one in Daedalus or this mention in the DOD annual report index. It is worth noting that ARPA referred to it both as "hard point" and "hardpoint" in the documents I've found (all linked within), both as the development effort and the overall concept, so it can be very confusing. It's a bit of the "Kleenex" problem.

@Maury Markowitz: hugely appreciate your response. Good enough for me. Will review later today. Seddon ^talk 15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: mostly just some comments about the image but we could skip on the image and needs a QPQ. Article could do with a quick copy edit. This was a reasonable number and dependaent are examples I found. Approved. All looks good! I cannot formally approve now since I'm proposing ALT1 to fix the issues raised by @AirshipJungleman29: to wrap this up. Seddon ^talk 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• • Sorry for my tardy reply @Seddon:, xmas time is busy! Excellent review. As to the image, my only concern with the one you suggest is that it is "busy", it's in the foreground but there's so much else going on. I think the solution might be to have someone "grey out" (or "white out" is more accurate) the rest of the image so that the missile stands out more. Let me ask over on the commons. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Maury Markowitz: any update on this? Also, this still needs a QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Sorry, this also dropped off my radar. The image was (slightly) updated so the one suggested above could be used. QPQ is Thomas J. Wright (American scholar) Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Seddon: Is this ready to be approved? If not, what needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:, I am unable to find the "able to hit 400g of acceleration" in the source. Is it derived from the "reached an axial acceleration of about 362g's and about 60g's lateral acceleration" on page 3-8? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: The previous page lists 377 g. The work "almost" has been removed at some point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I see "377 g" on page 3-7. Doesn't that mean that the currently proposed hook is not verified by this source? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz have you seen the above issue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we entertaining the possibility of changes to the hook to correct this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the hook needs to match the article, which needs to match the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I think this is all fixed here. Seddon ^talk 12:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman29 where are we on this?4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure why the article/hook feels the need to say "almost 400g" when they could just say "377g". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Also, Maury Markowitz is "reaction time" still in the article in some way? I don't see that discussed in the Wikipedia article. If it's not, it should be removed from the hook, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Struck, 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Rjjiii It is, do a find for "response". Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
        • @Maury Markowitz: Thanks, I've duplicated a citation at the end of that sentence. What do you think about the note from AirshipJungleman29 above? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
        • @Rjjiii: Thanks Rjjiii. As to the note, are we at the point in the evolution of the DYK that "almost 400" is not considered to accurately enough describe "377"? If so, feel free to change it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Have your concerns been resolved? If not, what still needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• ALT0 approved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)