Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AI Mk. IV radar/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

AI Mk. IV radar

edit

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar system. Its development took almost five years and is a story full of false starts, lucky breaks and bureaucratic infighting.

I'm not exactly sure what happened to the last FA process on this. Everything seemed to be going fine, then all the reviewers wandered off and then it was closed.

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors

  • There are lots of errors in the format of the references. Refs 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 50, 92 and 103 are not linked to the bibliography correctly. Also ref 46 says "Bowen 1991", ref 34 "Brown 1999" and some refs have "Hanbury Brown". Can you check them. User:Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed.Another useful script! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria, can you please be specific what captions need what copyediting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead caption needs a hyphen; Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion; RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated; generally overusing the word "ample" in captions; Mk III is a bit clunky, as is Dowdy; magnetron needs conversion; Mk VI and the first Displays image have grammar issues; generally inconsistent in the use of "wingtip" vs "wing tip". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lead caption needs a hyphen" - it does? Where?
"Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion" - hyphen where? 6.7m is not an actual measure, its referring to the frequency band.
"RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated" - how so.
Maybe you should just make these changes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I am honestly at a loss as to how to address these issues. Most of them I don't really understand. What should I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't convert wavelengths; they are like boat classes, 5.5 meter boats are not 5.5 meters long nor is a 5.5 meter boat an 18 foot boat. Even US sources measure them in metric units. The other two are completed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've not received any specific input on the captions, so I've edited every-but-one for brevity. I left the physical layout description as-is because I think it's key to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Note - Please check that the use of bold type as in "This led to Hanbury Brown's work on the Mark IVA" conforms with the manual of style. And, I'm still concerned about the image captions; as they stand some will require citations. I was alluding to this above when I commented on the length of the captions. User:Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bold terms if they are the titles objects of the sub-section they appear in, or alternate names for the same. This is so that links to those sub-sections appear as fully-formed sub-articles. Is this not correct? As to the captions, can you be super-specific as to the ones you'd like to see addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A large article with many technical aspects and units, difficult to get right. I've read most of the way through and found it fairly heavy going.
Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
Unit conversions are a requirement, they were not the problem. Lots of figures in a technical article is unavoidable but they can be controlled (does the reader need to know the exact values?).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Lead, word repetition, 'development' used twice in the second sentence, 'Early development'? Perhaps just 'development would be better.

Indeed, fixed.

*'On the "Beau"' seems too informal.

Fair enough, fixed.

*Luftwaffe is not linked (first instance), also 'altitude'.

Fixed and fixed.
  • '1.5 m wavelength (~193 MHz)', what is 'm'? Metres? What is MHz?
Yes and yes...
Great, though looking at it again wavelength or metre wavelength would be a better link.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went with option 2, simply because I think it looks better.
Wavelength has been unlinked?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*None of the many persons and establishments mentioned in this article feature in the lead. There is room for a fourth paragraph.

Hmmm, that's an interesting thought! Ok, let me know what you think of the addition.
Much better, there is a grammar problem (missing 'to'?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while to find that! Fixed.

*The image captions are lengthy and would benefit from wikilinking the objects and people in them (Hurricane, Heyford, Bawdsey Manor, Dowding etc).

Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've never liked it but who am I to argue with the MOS?! I'll work these in over the next couple of days. Actually, done!

*More word repetition, 'Henry Tizard, whose Tizard Committee... How about Henry Tizard, whose Committee...?

Fixed.
Could 'had to be moved from aircraft to aircraft for testing' become 'had to be moved between aircraft for testing'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Mixed tenses 'its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines had a well-insulated ignition system which give off minimal electrical noise.' 'Gave off' perhaps?

Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.

*Aircraft serial numbers should be italicised as it is effectively their name (MOS:ITALIC), aviation project convention which follows the ship examples.

Fixed.
Still a few remaining in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking... can you point them out? I must be blind... ok I think I got them all now.
  • None of the footnotes are cited, some refer to pages in used references but they need citations as used in the text.
Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
A technical problem that could probably be resolved with help, I avoid all templated referencing formats myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One footnote appears to refer to images (formatted with external links), images can not be used for citations (even though we know that London buses are indeed red!). Other footnotes still unsourced (apparent editor synthesis). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no 'See also' section or navbox for related subjects.
Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
Yes, Air warfare of World War II, History of Radar, Radar in World War II and European theatre of World War II are four subjects that readers might like to visit. A navbox could be produced linking World War II airborne radar types from Category:World War II radars, divided into nationality groups.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done!
Still no radar navbox. Castles in the sky is related surely? Does this article not come within the scope of WP:AVIATION? Template:Aviation lists is used in every article as a jumping point for readers who might want to find out more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any mention of this system or the development of AI in the Flight magazine online archives (exhaustion of sources)?
I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
I found the same page and a few others, it is laden with facts, is a reliable source and can be cited (provides another source that readers can read online).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an oversize image of a DH Mosquito to illustrate its antenna, could it be edited to crop and highlight this feature and show it at normal thumb size?
I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
Disagree with that logic and it remains your call, it looks odd to me apart from not clearly illustrating the detail it is supposed to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Why were the large windows of the Avro Anson a benefit for testing? I couldn't immediately find it in the adjacent text, just curious.

Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
Struck as the claim has been removed, appeared to be editor opinion without cited mention in the text. Surely the crews would be squinting out of the windscreen looking dead ahead for their tracked target? Perhaps that aspect needs clarifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of points and questions but all aimed at improving the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this equipment exist in physical form in museums? Are there images available (or a Commons link to an airborne radar equipment category)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(let me know if I missed any... maybe re-start the list for clarity?) Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed Nimbus! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my replies are missing, I still have the edit conflict window open and will leave the PC on overnight! WP software could do with an upgrade to show that the other person is typing as Facebook does in live chat. I will try to sort it out tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added missing edit conflict comments. If you sign with four tildes after each comment we will know who is commenting. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I'm going to restart the list. I think I have addressed everything except:

  1. Still looking for advice on cites-in-notes.
  2. The Flight example has a single mention of AI, in passing. I see nothing in this article that suggests it should be included for any reason. I'm hesitant to add links for the sake of adding links. Am I missing you intension here?
  3. As to images, I have discussed the matter with several people. The only person that had a good image of the Pye strip refused to release under a CC-ish licence. Norman Groom released all his images under CC-by-SA, but because he didn't use the specific terminology "CC-by-SA" it has been refused, and now he won't have anything more to do with the Wiki Commons as a result. The RAF Museum does not appear to have a Mk IV, nor the Duxford Radio Society.
  4. Anything else I missed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (point 1)

The gurus on the Village Pump sent me in the right direction. All the notes are now properly reffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I believe all the issues raised in this and previous FACs have now been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Temporary oppose It's likely we'll get enough copyediting help to push this over the hump, but we've got a ways to go. I make a suggestion below for the next step. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Watt", "Watson-Watt": the argument can be made either way, since he adopted the hyphenated name in 1942, but be consistent.
  • "Type 316A "giant acorn" vacuum tubes": I changed this to "Type 316A large acorn vacuum tubes", after doing some Google searching, but I'm just guessing ... if Western Electric called their product a Giant Acorn, then capitalize it. While we're on the subject ... someone has steered you wrong on quote marks, and it's getting tedious fixing them all. Some are ambiguous: for instance, does "Taffy" Bowen have quote marks because he picked up that nickname in the military but wasn't generally known that way? (Then use his real name.) Did people generally know him that way? (Then drop the quote marks.) Are these the kind of quote marks that postmodern writers liberally scatter in their prose, to avoid the impression that they take themselves or anything they write too seriously? (Take responsibility for your word choices.) Generally, so-called scare quotes suggest that some people, but not everyone, used the given name or concept ... but how is the reader to know how many people used it, or why some people didn't? One rule of thumb: use capitals, not scare quotes, for proper nouns. Fixing scare quotes is hard for a copyeditor to do ... I don't have access to most of the sources ... so please get to work on those, and I'll keep this page watch listed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea I was a post-modernest! I feed the need to purchase a beret. In any event, I removed almost all the scare quotes, leaving those around nicknames, direct quotes and references. As to nicknames, I looked over the MoS and several other sources, and could not find anything one way or the other, so I went with the most common format on the wiki, to quote them. I believe everything else has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm afraid there's more here than I'm going to have time to do, but I made a good start and I'm hoping that will allow someone to finish up. I got down to ASV emerges, and it's looking good so far. The writing is lively. Below where I left off, I believe there's more quoted text than just nicknames, direct quotes and references (although maybe some of those are direct quotes, and I can't tell). For instance, "all hell broke loose" was a cliché (unless I misunderstood and it was a direct quote ... but clichés don't serve as particularly memorable quotes). I went with something blander, but you may want to play around with it. And there's still a problem with the nicknames. Bowen is one of your sources, and skimming the text at books.google.com, he uses a lot of nicknames. For instance, the only mention of Walters in your article is sourced to Bowen: "... the Yagi antenna design, which had been brought to the UK when the Japanese patents were sold to the Marconi Company. "Yagi" Walters developed a system for AI use using five Yagi antennas." What are the odds that a guy who was nicknamed after an antenna kept the nickname throughout his life? If you want to mention Walters, please find out the name he actually used, the one that would go at the top of his Wikipedia article if he had one. He's owed that much if his contribution is important enough to mention.
Believe it or not, "all hell broke loose" is a direct quote - IIRC its quoted that way in the book (ie, in quotes). I'll try to find Walter's full name, I have failed to do so to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give this another look after you get another one or two reviewers here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to a request; I've struck my "temporary oppose". Comment: one change I made was reverted after I stopped working on this. This edit reintroduced two mistakes (one has been fixed by another editor), and also reverted "when they closed the distance, the ships mistook them for the enemy and launched" to "and then closed the distance to see "all hell broke loose" as the ships launched". The edit summary was correct, and one fix would have been to change "the enemy" to "an enemy" ... but it failed to mention that it was reverting on the point I had just been discussing (see above). When you revert on the point under discussion, please say you're reverting in the edit summary ... at a minimum, don't say only that you're fixing something else. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused... I did say I was reverting (didn't I) and I only reverted that single edit (I think). Am I missing something here? I'm happy to change this again, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've fixed it, not a problem now. I've checked the new edits, everything is still good down to where I stopped, ASV emerges. I've also checked the quoted material in the rest of it ... that all looks good too, except don't put quote marks around a block quote, per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I await your return! Ironically that fancy blue-background version of the BLOCK does put in quotes even if you don't... Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I've read through the article twice and my comments are below. It's a long list, but the great majority of the points are very minor and are easily fixable. My main concern about the article is the length, and I've put that first on this list. I think the article should be split, using summary style. I'd also like to add that the long list of minor points does not detract from my very high opinion of the article and the work that has gone into it. It's a great piece of work.

I have now supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues
  • Inserting a question: are you thinking more in terms of splitting this article in two, or moving some subsections into other articles? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about that, and I think it would probably be better to move some material to subarticles, replacing the moved material with summary information per summary style. I'd defer to editors expert on this topic, but the section structure in the article at the moment seems exactly right to me, though one could separate out a "background and genesis" section from the "Development" section. That gives this structure: (a) background and genesis; (b) development; (c) operational use; (d) IVA, V and VI; (e) technical description. I'm guessing here, but I would think (c) and (e) would remain almost completely intact in this article, but (b) and probably (d) would become subarticles (probably the same article). The background and genesis wouldn't require a subarticle of this article, but I think an article that fully covers the genesis of radar research and development in the UK starting in the mid-thirties is definitely a different article than this, so it's likely that some of the material here could be moved to that article. The result would be two articles focused on the Mk. IV: this one, and Development of the AI Mk. IV radar, which would be a child of it. That's just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be one of the longest FAs, if not the very longest, by readable prose size; looking through a few of the top articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length I can't find a longer one. I hate to suggest this, since I know this isn't the first pass through FAC, but have you considered splitting some material to a subarticle? So far I've only read about a third of the article in detail, and can't make a sensible suggestion on how this might be done, but I think it should be considered. And you might end up with two featured articles instead of one that way.
It's really not that much larger. Clicking on a few of the articles in the link you provided and using the DYK Check tool, which has a word counter, I see that (for instance) Mitt Romney is 11903, Ronald Reagan is 13344 and the King of Pop is 15056, and Mariah Carey is 11673. Even Prometheus is 9975. This article's 13653 puts it up there near the top, but it's certainly not the largest nor entirely unprecedented. Nor do I think it's unreasonable to suggest that an article on a technology that is widely credited with winning the deadliest war in history should be longer than, say, an article on an eminently stupid movie (IMHO, of course). What this does suggest is that the list page should have a prose counter on it, which should be possible? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll strike this. I think you should consider a split, but I don't think it should hold up featured status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Mk.III" in bold in the second sentence of the lead?
It is no longer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see you never explain who Robert Watt is -- he's linked (though only in the lead) but I think a parenthetical explanation of his position is necessary, in the body if not in the lead.
I've added a mention in the lead and more in the body. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mk. IV became obsolescent around 1943": "obsolescent" means "becoming obsolete"; wouldn't this be better as "obsolete", or "was obsolescent by"? Though if you stick with "obsolescent" it sounds like the date is probably earlier than 1943.
I've re-worked that section. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dowding system relied on": I think the reader needs a more direct statement that this is the same thing as the "string of CH stations" mentioned in the previous paragraph. Is the Dowding system the same thing as the CH stations? It seems not because it "relied on a network of reporting stations", which I assume is the CH stations.
And added a paragraph here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tizard wrote his thoughts in a 27 April 1936 letter": how about "put his thoughts"?
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one receiver was available, and had to be moved between aircraft for testing": either "which had to be moved" or "and it had to be moved".
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another attempt to revive the RDF 1.5 concept ... was carried out in March 1940": I think "made" is more natural than "carried out".
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this was soon sorted out by fitters": "sorted out" is a bit colloquial; how about "resolved"?
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slow advancement in form of ASV": I'm not sure what this means.
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K8758 is only mentioned in a picture caption; shouldn't it also be mentioned in the text?
Indeed it should. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arnold Tustin was called in to consider the problem": can we have a descriptive word or two here, indicating that Tustin was an employee of Metrovick, as I would guess?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Bowen want to switch to AC?
Good point, fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works; can I suggest combining those two paragraphs, since they now tell a continuous story? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable link target for "phase shifting circuit" or "phase comparison"?
Indeed there is! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Metrovick had been told to directly copy ("Chinese") the 1937 design by Percy Hibberd but they had delivered the wrong prototype to Metrovick, who copied it": who is the "they" who delivered the prototype to Metrovick?
That should help, although I can't be more specific. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further deliveries were not the Mk. IF and IIF models...": it took me a couple of seconds to realize that this refers to delivery of the Blenheims, not the radar units; it's confusing because of the common Mk. notation. How about "The first Blenheims delivered were the Mk. IF and IIF models; subsequent deliveries were of the Mk. IVF, with a longer nose."?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Lovell says "'the apparatus is tripe even for a television receiver'" is he referring to the AI radar itself? So the fitters thought the radar was poor quality equipment? If so I think this should be made a bit clearer, since the context for the quote is the conditions, not the AI radar itself.
He's certainly referring to the electronics, although there's nothing in the text that clearly states this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this through a couple more times I'm going to strike my comment; I don't see any other sensible way to interpret this. I tried to come up with some explanatory wording to add to the introductory phrase, but couldn't find anything I liked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "locking timebase" in italics in the discussion of the AIL? I suspect it's because it's not known what this is, per the note at the end of the sentence. I think it might be better to move that note to right after "locking timebase"; that would give the reader an immediate answer to the question of why it's in italics.
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, because that works, but what I meant was to move the note to directly follow the words "locking timebase", still leaving it as a note. Either that or what you currently have is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to appoint someone to command of the entire night fighting system": presumably should be "to command the".
Actually the original is correct as well, but I changed this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're right; I didn't notice that it could be parsed that way. I hope the change is harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have both "Bentley Priory" and "Bently Priory".
No longer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hanbury Brown is linked at second occurrence instead of first; when you change this, it would be good to give him a word or two of description ("one of the researchers", or "a senior physicist", or whatever's appropriate) since he's a significant figure in the rest of the article.
I have left the linking as-is because I think it makes more sense - the first instance is in passing, and the second is the main introduction. I added a statement about brown, but I'm not sure I like how it reads now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The linking is fine. Would parentheses work better than parenthetical commas? I also have a question about the following sentence. I'd assumed on first reading that the subject of "come up with" is "fitters", since that's what makes the grammar work. However, it seems plausible that the subject is "Hanbury Brown and Wood", in which case it should be "coming up with". Can you confirm it's right the way it is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your guess is correct, I've added a comma to make this clear. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in an unsuccessful attempt to smooth them over. This attempt evidently failed": I'd suggest shortening this to "in an attempt to smooth them over, which evidently failed".
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the change from the long-nose IVF to the glass-nose IF and IIF": the earlier discussion seems to indicate that it was the other way round -- initial Blenheim deliveries were the IF and IIF, but the later deliveries were the IVF.
Indeed the sense was wrong. Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention of "self-exciting concept" doesn't provide any explanation; is this a reference to an earlier discussion that doesn't use this term?
Fixed, and a link. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked this slightly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't something you need to correct, but aesthetically I have to say I don't like the decision to bold the Mk. IV and subsequent MK numbers towards the end of the article. I don't think it's necessary, and it's visually distracting. However, I think this is within the range of editor discretion, so I wouldn't withhold support for this.
I have been involved in numerous threads over the last five years about this, and every time the consensus was to use bolding because links to that section should read like a sub-article. How is this not reflected in the MOS? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some ideas what's going on here Maury ... we'll work it out, it won't hold up promotion of the article. Can you give me a link to one of those discussions? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother, let's just remove it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment, just to make it clear it's not an issue for me; I'll let you two sort it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hanbury Brown stated that "it did everything that we had originally hoped that airborne radar would do for night-fighting", and notes that this was only a year after the first Mk. I's, but it felt like ten": mixed tenses here -- "stated" and "notes" should match tense.
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link EKCO at first mention, but then refer to E.K. Cole; any reason not to just say "EKCO" again?
None. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention of Dowding's nickname, "Stuffy", is in the quote from Bowen, with no explanation. How about making the introductory phrase "Bowen relates the outcome ("Stuffy" was Dowding's nickname):"?
I think this is better? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A contact for this type of radar had already been sent out in June or July": should this be "contract"?
Indeed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But Phillips had not ignored AI, but pointed out that": two "but"s in close sequence.
No longer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowen's demonstration of the early land-based radars against shipping had led to the Army ordering development as Coast Defence (CD) radars in 1936": I think another word or two is needed in the second half -- perhaps "ordering development of the technology as"?
Or this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that quite works; "development" needs to be "development of" something, unless you phrase it as "their development". This is the same thing that bothered me about "ordering development as", so I'm now wondering if this is a usage found in the sources that I'm unfamiliar with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the hyphen for in "24-CD sets"?
A typo I believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As attention turned back to the AI role": I'd suggest making this "As attention turned back to the airborne interception (AI) role", since you use this abbreviation several times later in the article, and readers unfamiliar with the topic may not recall the meaning of AI from the title of the article.
Agreed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GCI section ends with an uncited statement of the kill rate; I think this should be cited. To avoid a little redundancy in the phrasing I'd also suggest something like this: "in December 1940 the interception rate was 0.5%, by May 1941 with more stations and better familiarity, the interception rate had reached 7%, though the kill rate was lower, at around 2.5%."
I have left the wording along, but added a cite. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since the cite was the important point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from then the UK would be subject to dramatically lower rates of bombing": I think the tense here is wrong, and I think "from then on" is more natural. How about "from then on the UK was subject to ..."?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Luftwaffe losses were forty bombers and 150 aircrew": why "forty", when you use numerals for all the other numbers in this paragraph?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the picture of the Mosquito, I can't tell what part of the plane is the radome -- I've no background in this area. Is it the nose? Can the caption be more specific?
It can indeed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the crew from IV/NJG.3 defected to the UK": the linked article indicates this is a fighter wing, so perhaps "a crew" would be better than "the crew".
It would indeed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again, which introduces a 4th power loss of energy as noted in the radar equation": I don't think you need the mention of the radar equation here -- you give a lay description of the advantage in the next sentence, which is sufficient. I'd go with "However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again; instead, the signals ..."
And even better... Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Homing on the enemy's broadcasts" is evidently intended to convey that the Mk. IV, which had been obsolescent, was given a new role by Serrate which it could fill better than the newer Mk. VII. However, you don't actually say this; I think it would better to be explicit.
Better? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am up to this point now, my wife is calling me away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was calculated that one..." this sentence is uncited.
Removed. This came from Beaufighter Aces, but I can't find it now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which began to arrive from Pye in late February to demonstrate a host of problems": I don't think this phrasing works; it didn't "arrive to demonstrate" the problems. How about "which began to arrive from Pye in late February, and immediately demonstrated a host of problems"?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences out of three start with "However" towards the end of "Mk. IVA and Mk. V". The paragraph mentions the microwave design in two different places; it might be better to simply mention it once, and say that concerns about delays allowed the Mk. V to go forward, but as the microwave project progressed the Mk. V was first delayed and ultimately cancelled. Can dates be given to any of those events, by the way?
Broke this up a bit, seems to read better now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the contracts for over 1,000 units was allowed" -- either "contract" or "were allowed", depending on whether there were multiple contracts.
  • "a NF.II from No. 151": I don't know what this means.
Ditto. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "follow-on examples followed": rephrase to avoid repetition of "follow".
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A single Hawker Typhoon was experimentally fit with AI Mk. VI radar": should be "fitted", I think.
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they operated only briefly, about four months": suggest just "they operated for only about four months".
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk)
  • "lengthy trials into 1944": suggest "lengthy trials lasting into 1944".
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Beaufighter IF of No. 604": what does "of No. 604" mean?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this point, the RAF had significantly improved their deployment of GCI radar, had many more night fighter squadrons in service": looks like an incompletely edited sentence. Adding "and" before the second "had" would fix it.
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the first raids were largely a surprise, and met by ineffective responses; on the first raid": a semi-colon can't be used with "while" in this way.
  • "the Tizard Mission, which left for the US in August 1940": according to our article it left in "late September", though the dates it gives are early September. Can you just confirm that the August date is correct?
The mission left in August, Tizard joined them in September. They spent some time in Ottawa before going to Washington.Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the "AIS, replacement" section is uncited.
Removed entirely, all of that is now in the next section anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about redlinking Paddy Green in the opening image caption? He's an ace and seems likely to have an article at some point.
Indeed, the fact that he doesn't have one already is slightly surprising. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon my ignorance, but what was the IFF for? Why would you want to retransmit the radar signal? As it stands I don't see why this section is relevant to the article, but perhaps that just because I don't understand it at the moment.
If you mean the IFF section in the description area, I've added a bit of text to clarify this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A new set was built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver and first flew in a Battle in May 1939": I don't think this quite works. How about "A new set, built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver, first flew in a Battle in May 1939"?
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side note: I believe that it should be "EF50s" and not "EF50's". I can't find the reference in the MoS though, so I could be wrong.
  • "their own radar was turned on for the final approach": suggest "the fighter's own radar would be turned on".
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-stopping here for now.
  • The timing in the paragraph about CHL seems odd -- surely the Luftwaffe weren't laying mines in range of CH by August 1939?
This is the only one I can't find... can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Luftwaffe also discovered this when they noticed aircraft laying mines" -- the discussion in this paragraph makes it appear that a decision was taken in August 1939 based on the Luftwaffe's minelaying behaviour. Were they laying mines prior to the war? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. The mention in question was simply out of order historically. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we make the first reference to Bawdsey Manor "Bawdsey Manor, in Suffolk", or "on the Suffolk coast"? It's not a place most readers will have heard of, and for UK readers at least this would help.
This may help. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the discussion of the microwave development mentioned Dundee, I'd been under the impression that when the group moved from Dundee to Perth nothing was left in Dundee -- the discussion made it sound as though there was essentially no room there. Going back through I see that I misread it, but there a couple of clarifications that I think would help. First, you don't mention the AMRE ("The Dundee group, now known as the ... AMRE") untill after the discussion of Dundee with reference to the AI team. I think the existence of a relevant group in Dundee should be mentioned no later than the first mention of the AI team's shortlived move to Dundee University. Second, in the Mk. III paragraph you mention "the Dundee teams" and "the Dundee shops"; as far as I can see the reader doesn't know what these phrases mean at that point. Later you say "the main radar research teams in Dundee" which is certainly helpful but would be more useful earlier. And even after going back and forth to the different mentions of Dundee, I am not clear on who or what was moved from Dundee to St. Athan and what groups were left in Dundee.
Improved? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general comment -- at several points I found myself scanning back through the article to understand the timeline. Read sequentially, the dates are pretty clear, but when I tried to figure out (for example) when the move from Dundee to Cardiff occurred, it took me quite a bit of scrolling up and down to be sure it was 1939. Could you add the year to a couple more places in the story, so that the date context is quickly available when skimming? For example, I'd make it "when they arrived on 5 November 1939" in the "Emergency move" section; and the move to Worth Matravers is not given a date in the article.
  • "The newer VHF radios did not suffer these problems and the Blenheims were among the first aircraft to be fitted": what's the connection between these two statements? Did the Blenheims have the VHF radios, and that's why they were fitted, or was it just fortunate that the Blenheims, which happened to have the VHF radios, were among the first to get the AI radar?
The fitting of VHF was deliberate, edited. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pye had since gone on to form his own radio company, Pye Ltd. and were active in the television field": if it's Appleton and Pye who were active, I'd make this "and he and Appleton were active"; if it's the company, then I'd make it "who were active" (with British English requiring the company to be plural).
Tense problem,, fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This led to the formation of [...] under the direction of Richard Peirse. Peirse immediately began the formation of [...] which formed at RAF Tangmere on 10 April 1940": can we avoid having "formation" twice, and "formed", within a sentence and a half?
Is that better? Or too jargon-y? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a 10 September meeting of the Committee, Dowding proposed that all Mk. IVs be sent to Beaufighters, which were just beginning to enter production in quantity." Can this be cited?
better, it can be removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In spite of all of these problems, at a May 2 meeting of the Night Interception Committee": another timing question: if the problems are all found in May, I don't think the committee's decision can be said to be in spite of the problems.
I'm not sure it's incorrect as stated, but it reads better without it anyway, so gone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interest in the 1.5 m systems began to wane, right at the time that the animosity between Bowen and Rowe was at its maximum": the timing here appears to be after the 12 August demonstration, which seems out of sync with the information given earlier, which makes it appear that Bowen was already out of the AI research group by the end of March, and in July was invited to go on the Tizard Mission.
Also removed. I'm not sure why I added that actually, as it is simply incorrect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done some rewording in this area, which does help, but you still have the timeline jumping back and forth. I'm not saying things have to be strictly chronological, which would often be even more confusing, but when you do decide to go back and forth as you do in these paragraphs ("On 21 February 1940 .... In April .... The first test system was assembled on 12 August 1940 .... Rowe soon ... moved AMES once again ... the AI team arrived first in May 1940") the reader needs a tense change or other signal: "Rowe had earlier decided", or more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur Tedder later admitted to Tizard on 24 January 1940 that": surely the date is wrong here? The events in question were in 1940, weren't they?
No, these events all took place in 1939. But removing "later" didn't hurt. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm completely confused. I thought Tedder was referring to events that were a consequence of the minimum range controversy, which are the topic of the previous few paragraphs. In fact, the date of his letter appears to predate everything discussed in that section -- e.g. the controversy appears once the Blenheims demonstrate long minimum range, which is in April 1940. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder is referring more to the use of the development team as installers than the minimum range issue. By forcing Bowen and the others to do installations through the fall and winter of 1939, while everyone knew the sets were not ready, development of solutions ended. This led to Dundee trying it on their own, and then, in turn, to Bowen and Rowe falling out. That process took several months to reach its conclusion of breaking up the AI team, as well as the EMI solution reaching the testing stage. Reading it over now, that does seem fairly clear in the text. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read through that section again, and I think the key sentence is "While working around the clock to install the remaining Mk. I sets at Perth and St Athan, the team had no time for further development of the electronics", which is towards the beginning of that section. Given your explanation, I can now see how to parse this section as you intended, but I don't think that a reader unfamiliar with the material would find the timeline easy to extract. I think a couple of minor changes would make this a lot clearer to the reader. Unless I've missed it, I don't think you explicitly say "the researchers were pulled off research work and added to the production effort" until the sentence I quote above, which doesn't actually say they were pulled into production; it just says there were working on production. That's the only sentence that refers to a time prior to April 1940 in the Mk. III section until you get to the reasons why Bowen is upset. I think the following might work, but this is just a suggestion:
  • Change "While working around the clock to install the remaining Mk. I sets at Perth and St Athan, the team had no time for further development of the electronics" to "Since <approx date in 1939>, the research team had been working around the clock at Perth and St Athan to install the remaining Mk. I sets, and had had no time for further development of the electronics". The date of the change is important, along with "had had" to help establish in the reader's mind that this is a long-standing problem by this time. If you have the sources to make a statement such as "X had insisted in <date> that the research team switch their focus from development to production" that would be even better.
  • Change "All of these moves" to "All of the moves" which I think eliminates some date confusion.
  • Change "admitted to Tizard on 24 January 1940" to "had pointed out the problems out to Tizard long before the problems came to a head, writing on 24 January 1940", making it clearer we're jumping back in time for Tedder's comments.
That's just a suggestion, but I thought it would be better to be concrete so you could see what I think needs doing, even if you don't like this solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
On another read through, I noticed this sentence: "... it would be up to Bowen's team to hand-assemble ..." which is relevant if "Bowen's team" means the research team as well as any fitters. If that's the case, perhaps a comment could be added here indicating that this would later lead to problems. Also, if I understand you correctly, the issues the letter refers to are spread out through the Mk. I, Pye strip, Emergency move, Mk. II, and Mk. III sections; the quote from Tedder, embedded in the Mk. III section, doesn't immediately declare itself as referring to the whole sequence of events to that point. So perhaps "had pointed out the problems, which had begun even before the move from Bawdsey, to Tizard long before then, writing on 24 January 1940". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I have moved the statement and made minor adjustments on either side. I believe the new layout addresses this issue. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does it nicely. Thanks for sticking with me through that one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Displays and interpretation" section, I think more explanation is needed -- the blips are just barely visible in thumbnail view, and I didn't notice them, so I assumed that the ground reflection was the blip, and clicked through to find out why there was a discrepancy between the caption and what I was seeing.
Try that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Can we cut the parentheses and italics from "just"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the alphabetic endnotes are uncited; for some this is fine, as they are clearly comments about the sources, rather than facts taken from the sources (e.g. the "printer's error" comment in note b). However, a couple do seem to me to require citations -- h, l (second sentence), and o.
Well the link in H is the cite, I didn't see a reason to make the user click twice to get to the same place. As to L, how does one cite the statement that it doesn't exist? O is cited. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For H, any reason not to do this the usual way, and cite with a footnote and link it in the references list? I guess if you have some reason to prefer it this way I won't oppose, but I don't see any benefit to doing it like this. OK on L. O is now N, which is uncited; a note was moved into main text which changed the lettering. To be specific, can you cite the fact that there were 150 sets ordered? I don't think that it's controversial but it's not the sort of thing you'd put in without a source, so it might as well be cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about the confusion on the lettering. The 150 is cited in the article, White p. 145. It's 80 from ASV and 70 from EKCO. The note is pointing out a problem in White, where he has one sentence adding to 150, and the very next only talking about 100. I'll make the note clearer.Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This meant that the homing device could only be used for the initial tracking of the target, the final approach would have to be carried out by radar": run-on sentence.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that's true, but try this version. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part you changed isn't what was bothering me. How about "This meant that the homing device could only be used for the initial tracking of the target, and the final approach would have to be carried out by radar"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes. Ok, I've re-worded this whole section. Its smaller now too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you did there -- that sentence is unchanged, isn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, perhaps I'm missing it... I did add the "and" though, is that what you meant? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one or two more points on another read through.

  • When Bowen's name is introduced in the body, he should be identified with a couple of words; "physicist", at least, and perhaps an indication of what group he was in prior to the AI group.
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't see a change -- what did you do? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it but think I reverted somehow. In again, in the lead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this one, can you check again? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Mk. 1 section: "a longer blip on the left". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and this 200 MHz setting would be common to many radar systems of this era" is uncited; I wouldn't withhold support for this, since I don't think it's controversial, but if you have a citation to hand I'd suggest adding it.
Would a note linking to the other systems using it suffice? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, re-worded intro and added a ref for other uses.
  • More generally, why do we have so much information about GCI in this article? Does it bear directly on the Mk. IV? I can see it's a critical part of the development of radar and of the British war effort, but what's the relevance here?
Ahhh. Well to boil it right down, AI was essentially useless without GCI radar. Using CH the radar operators had to engage in a lengthy process to convert range and bearing to grid coordinates, and then call those into the filter room. By they time they had done this, the aircraft had moved. This is one of the reasons that CH was only good to about 5 miles. Now add to this a similar limitation measuring and reporting the location of the fighter. So you ended up with two five-mile wide circles, and had to have them overlap in space to within maybe 3 miles. And since they're coming from different radars, or even huff-duff, the five mile error isn't even the same five miles. Operators had to look at the map, try to guess the actual locations, and then tell the pilots how to turn to close the distance. Good luck with that!
With GCI both aircraft appear on the same screen. There is no need to report the locations to anyone, and the intercept angle is right there on the screen. There is an error in measure, but it's always the same error for both. And since much of the error is due to time delays, the fact that GCI measures both every few seconds basically eliminates that as well.
Very basically, AI simply didn't work without GCI as well. And that didn't change until the 1960s when you had things like AIRPASS that so greatly extended the range of the AI that the fighter could hunt on their own.
I thought the article explained this, but if its unclear, certainly I'm open to suggestions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I follow this now. There's a statement at the start of the "End of the Blitz" section that says this; I guess I didn't understand this the first time through. I think it would be good to make clearer the importance of the combination of "AI Mk. IV, the Beau and GCI". I'll think about it and see if I can suggest anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this the more important this sentence seems. Can a version of it be put into the lead? The story of the article is not just of the technical development of the radar, but of its operational implementation, and if its true that this combination was what finally made the radar a valuable weapons system, then that needs to be in the lead. I'm not sure it shouldn't be given more prominence in the body, too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, yes I think that is an excellent idea! I have added a statement that seems to fit in nicely.Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added to the lead works very well. Could we also add a strengthening sentence to the GCI section? I think part of my original problem with the GCI section was the sentence "Their effect on the battle was as profound as AI itself", which implies that AI had a big impact, and so too, independently, did GCI, making me wonder why it was in this article. Could we make this something like you said above: "The combination of GCI, the Mk. IV AI radar, and the more powerful night fighters enabled AI to have a profound effect on the battle"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't exactly sure what to do here, but I have re-worded this a bit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To ensure continued supply, in 1940 a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50's and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes": this is a flash-forward, and I think a bit of rephrasing might be good. The timing in relation to the German invasion of Holland also seems relevant. How about something like: "The EF50s became key components of ..., and to ensure continued supply, the following year a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50s and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes. The shipment left the Netherlands just days before the German invasion on 15 May 1940."?
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make it "and left the Netherlands only days before"? Also, I suspect that should be "Princess Beatrix" in the related footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That one is done already. As to the spelling, this one is actually not Safari being aggressive... "Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Beatrix". Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but then shouldn't it be "Prinses" instead of "Princes"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this with a little google-fu, and it seems all variations are seen. I can find Prinses, Princes and Princess for the same ship. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, I don't know. I do know I copy-n-pasted it from this, which I consider reliable for this particular note. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll let it go; I suspect it should be either "Prinses" or "Princess" but I don't know, so let's leave it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the timing of events in the Mk. III section. It seems the minimum range controversy came to head after the experimental fitting to 20 Blenheim IFs in April 1940, and the IIIA and IIIB efforts were presumably begun at about that time. Then the team at St Athan "heard of this". What exactly did they hear of that upset them? That other researchers were working on the same gear, cutting them out of the research work and leaving them working on production? Tizard hears of complaints and visits Dundee, and the memo dated 29 March 1940 is after that -- so that's before any aircraft have been fitted with the Mk. III. The only way this makes sense is that the minimum range controversy blew up well before testing in the aircraft. If that's correct, then I think some rewording is needed so the timeline is clearer.
Installations of the earlier Mks took place starting around October and continued as the sets arrived, right through the winter into 1940. The range issue came up in the middle of this and proceeded in parallel. The memo in question is after all of this - as is typical for the slow grinding of bureaucracy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that doesn't quite address the point I meant to raise. The complaints are before the memo, of course; but the events in the prior paragraph are given explicit dates, and are after the memo (and hence after the complaints). So starting the paragraph with "When the team at St Athan heard of these developments" is confusing; the referent for "these events" is evidently not "everything that happened in the prior paragraph", but the reader is not clear what the referent is, so some clarification is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've nailed it now. The basic issue is Lewis started work on the problem while Bowen was still too busy installing to fix it himself, never told Bowen he was doing it, and (according to Bowen) basically oversold the problem to Lardner and others specifically to create a tempest in a teapot. So read it over again with that in mind and see if this version runs more smoothly now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
more cleanup here. But what do you think about "production version arriving in February" -> "production version not arriving until February "Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does it, so I've struck the point that started this conversation. Re your question: does the "extended period of installation development and testing" come before or after February 1942? Depending on the answer, how about "with the first production version requiring an extended period of installation development and testing and hence not arriving until February 1942", or "with the first production version arriving in February 1942, and subsequently requiring an extended period of installation development and testing"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think we've at least touched on every point. Let me know if I missed any. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Mike, much more thorough than my light copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate the compliment (as I also appreciate your copyediting of my own nominations). There are times when being OCD has its uses, but mostly I find the better the articles are, the easier it is to motivate myself to do a really thorough review -- and this is an outstandingly good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think I've now caught up. Everything left unstruck above is because I don't think it's been addressed; if it has, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a terrific piece of work, integrating a long and complicated story over an extended period, including the human, technical and military history. I have not looked at the images or done a source check, and I'm not really qualified to judge the comprehensiveness of the article, but I see no gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. I only found one double period. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Mirokado

edit

I've started to look at this, but got distracted following wikilinks and tweaking Dowding system :). I hope to comment tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I want to do is distract you from looking at a FAC (I say "fack", some say "F.A.C.") that you're interested in ... but when a nominator hasn't had a chance to respond yet to a wall-full of requests, piling on more requests might reduce their enthusiasm. So, you may want to go easy (or even help with some of Mike's requests above, if you like, I'm sure it will be appreciated). - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a while: the main problem would be any duplicated comments if I "pile on". --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably have only a few comments after the above thorough review: spread over several evenings since the article is quite long:

  • Development / Genesis: Group and Sector
    • "telephoned to the Group headquarters": various Groups are mentioned in the article: what is this?
    • "from there to the Sectors": what is a Sector?
See if the expansion makes this more clear. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early efforts:
    • "|Fighter", stray pipe char.
    • "night fighting technique": techniques?
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giant acorns, shorter wavelengths and ASV
    • "Meanwhile, Hibberd...": This para is confusing because the new value is quoted in metres, then the old value is mentioned in MHz, saying this would be used for many following radar systems. Then another value in metres, and then that last value is repeated in MHz saying this would be common to many systems of this era. It took me some time, and looking for other mentions of 45 MHz including the later Pye strip section, to understand what was meant. It may be enough to say 1.25 m (250 MHz) for the first value, since then the reader can follow the frequency values and does not lose track of the distinction between intermediate and operating frequency.
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ASV emerges:
    • picture caption: "ASV was mounted to larger...": "mounted on" is I think the correct usage here, I've never seen "mounted to".
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gun Laying radar systems": is Gun Laying a proper name?
Gun Laying is indeed a proper name in this case, it's the British Army term for these sorts of radars. They were later changed to Radar, AA, but that was some time in 1942/43. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the above now OK. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of the Blitz
    • "nor had any obvious effect on their economic output": I didn't really like "their" in this context, but "it" is already used for the Luftwaffe air campaign. I think we could simply omit "their": "However, it had also failed to bring the country to peace talks, nor had any obvious effect on economic output."
    • "At the end of May the Germans called off The Blitz": "The Blitz" here and elsewhere, but "the Blitz" in the section title. It looks as if the section title needs to be "End of The Blitz".

--Mirokado (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note We are waiting for the nominator's response. Graham Beards (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, response on what, the source?. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The current source is a Russian aficionado website. [2]
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks OK as far as I am concerned. --Mirokado (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just this last issue to sort out...

Support - and recusing from my FAC coordinator role. The article is a fascinating read. Could the nominator quickly address the remaining issue, check the references for doubled periods ( I saw one ?ref 32) and an odd "p=" (ref 85). Lastly, please review the usage of "also"; I am not convinced that all of them are needed. Graham Beards (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maury has made some fixes, as noted up above in this section. I fixed the "p=" and I think that addresses everything on Graham's list. @Mirokado: can you be specific about the change you are unhappy with? I'd be glad to try to help fix it as I think this is a very deserving article but I need to know what you think is wrong. @Maury Markowitz:, I think you still need to specify the chapter for the ref mentioned by Mirokado just above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that such a trivial point is causing a delay here. The sentence appearing just after the references and before the citations was, when I commented on it:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D, para 25.
I effectively requested two changes. The first is to add the chapter to the reference details. The sentence with that correction would be:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D, Chapter 1, para 25.
For tidiness, it would be better to add the year too, since all the other AP1093D references have it:
Specifications in the infobox taken from AP1093D 1946, Chapter 1, para 25.
For complete consistency as I would think of it, I also requested that we use template:harvnb to link this reference to the citation, by which I meant:
Specifications in the infobox taken from {{harvnb|AP1093D|1946|loc=Chapter 1, para 25}}.
Bibliography
* {{Cite book ... | ref = {{SfnRef|AP1093D|1946}} ...}}
I will be happy with either of the last two examples (and happier with the last). Unfortunately we have ended up using sfn instead of harvnb to link the reference, which means that a spurious reference is generated at the end of the external links section. I already tweaked that sentence once so I can't make the necessary change myself (well of course I physically can, but should not, to preserve independence as a reviewer). --Mirokado (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I 'd say just go ahead - it's no different than copy-editing, which is fine for a reviewer to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've restored the use of harvnb. --Mirokado (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now supporting. This as Mike and Graham have said is an excellent article. --Mirokado (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirokado, the use of templates when transcluded in a FAC which is then transcluded to FAC archives causes the archives to exceed template limits, resulting in some FACs being chopped when the archives are long. For this reason, transcluded templates are discouraged in the FAC instructions. Could you possibly remove the talkquote templates above and replace them with straight text? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'll try to remember that. --Mirokado (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • "No description of what a locking timebase might be is found in any of the references; the possibility of lock-follow can be discounted, as this did not appear until a year later and was named AIF." -- this really should be a footnote I think.
  • All paragraphs should generally end with citations; two in Baedeker Blitz do not as yet.
  • Did I miss a source review for formatting and reliability above?
  • Also I realise how late in the day it is for this nom but I notice now that it's been quite a long time between FAs for Maury, so we really should have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If no volunteers from current watchers for the last two I'll post requests at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Storm's exhaustive review, which I suspect will satisfy your curiosity. Text moved back to foot. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Ian, but if I were considering closing this FAC, I would find this response wanting. Have all the points he raised been fully addressed? And, Ian is asking for a spotcheck; this has not been done. Graham Beards (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a spotcheck for close paraphrasing. I don't have access to hardcopy of any of the sources, but I was able to find some in Google Books. I checked about half-a dozen and found nothing that was a cause for concern for close paraphrasing. Sources I checked include Bowman, Bowen, Hanbury Brown and Lovell.

As for reliability, all the sources look fine to me. Some are personal reminiscences by the participants, rather than third party assessments, but the article takes the appropriate care with those sources and the distinctions are visible to the reader. Where I can judge, the sources look impeccable. I have not checked for formatting as I'm terrible at that myself, but I noticed no errors. However, the PDF links for White are no longer functional, so I've commented them out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They moved, fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Reference 62 (Military Wireless, Radar & Navigation Equipment 1939 – 1966) is a dead link. The others are ok. Graham Beards (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He added "l" to "htm". Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/AI_Mk._IV_radar/archive2&oldid=1077424539"