Talk:Type 965 radar

Section headings should be relevant to the contents of their sections

I have no objections to there being sections on development and operational history.

However, a section on development ought to contain information on development - and I have not found sources that would support this. Information about the procurement decision, and the choices available is very different from information on development.

Similarly I would expect a section on operational history to contain information on the radar's roughly 50 years of front-line service in different navies. I would not expect it to just contain a few facts on its operational capabilities.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections, BUT the lead is no lead section is much too long in my opinion. Also "Why the Type 965 was procured" is no adequate heading in my opinion. Do you have any better suggestions instead of just reversing? Cobatfor (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what your objection is to Why the Type 965 was procured as a section heading. Please do this in terms of Wikipedia policies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography used, please?

Hi Toddy1, thanks for putting together this article so shortly after it was requested. Can you please add the list of bibliographic sources used, with complete details? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have done the list of bibliographic sources used. I did look at more issues of Jane's Fighting Ships than mentioned - they mostly say the same thing, year after year.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)