Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IFF Mark II/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [1].

IFF Mark II

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first IFF system to be used. IFF is an important technology, it's what keeps jets from pilling into each other (as long as the pilots listen to it!), and this is the device that started it all. It underwent a MILHIST A-class a while back and I've been letting it stew for a while since. But it seems it doesn't have much more it needs, so it's time to bring it here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from me, although I am completely out-of-my-depth with the tech stuff:

the use of italics for sector and blip is non-standard, quotes would be better, or just plain text would probably also be ok.
I'm not sure about the use of "Battle" on its own. Suggest using "Battle of Britain" at each instance.
the second sentence of Note a needs a citation.
it is a bit unclear to me, is there an article for the Mark I IFF? I see there is one for the Mark III.
Rather than one History section, I think a Background (Previous efforts and Mark I), History (Mark II) and Aftermath (Mark III) structure would be better.

That's all I have. A well-written and succinct article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Just saw these comments now. I give up on trying to understand MOS on italics, so I'll use quotes in these cases - in this case sector does not mean sector so I think that's worth noting. I changed all references to Battle of Britain. The second statement in the note is referenced in the main body. Mark I and Mark II are almost identical, so they are both covered in this article; cf. ASV Mark II and AI Mark IV. I've never quite decided if I like the compound articles, but can't convince myself separating them out helps anything. In contrast, Mark III is a very different device. The History section is meant to be read as a largely chronological story of this device's genesis and fadeout, so I normally put it all in one section with subsections. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PM, are you satisfied that your comments have been dealt with? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I reviewed this article at A-class, and believe it meets the standards. I endorse Peacemaker67's suggestions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I've read this through and can find very little wrong; I've made one minor copyedit. I'll read it again tomorrow and expect to support then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read through again and made another small edit. Succinct and clear, and as far as I can tell, comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

Having first heard of IFF when I read war comics as a kid, and finding it such a useful idea, I can't resist recusing coord duties to review. Don't hesitate to let me know any concerns with my copyedit; aside from that:

"The system was much more likely to work than the Mark I because the pilot could not forget to tune it" -- do we mean that it generally didn't require tuning so that as a rule the pilot didn't need to remember? As written it sounds more like some alarm that'd go off ensuring he tuned it...

Well it would, if by "alarm" you mean "AA exploding around you". I've re-worded this section.

"Even when IFF was available, its general unreliability made it difficult for controllers to trust it" -- this kind of pulled me up short because up to that point the impression I'd received from the Mark II subsection was that this was a useful system but "general unreliability" seems to say otherwise. Did I miss something?

The timeline I think - this is referring to the BOB period when the unreliable Mark I was in (some) use. I've touched it up to make it more obvious.

Regarding content as opposed to to prose, my first comment is that I was somewhat surprised to find such a succinct article on the subject. I think it provides a good overview but I wonder if there's room for more detail in places, for instance:

Where there any notable cases where the system was used but failed somehow and Allied fighters attacked friendly aircraft? I don't mean like Barking Creek where it wasn't used at all...

I suspect hundreds - even in Korea IFF was considered suspect to the point they ended up assuming all aircraft were friendly. But this is more about IFF in general than Mark II specifically, I'm not aware of any Mark II specific incidences. Closterman's famous example was Mark III. I think that's simply because Mark II wasn't in service for that long.

Aside from infiltrating Allied bomber formations, did the Germans have any other methods for spoiling the system? For instance did they ever try duplicating it (perhaps using captured Allied planes as a starting point)?

Yes, but again, not for Mark II. They did have one for Mark III (and IIRC, the Japanese had it too) but I'm not sure of its operational experience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those changes Maury; assuming Brian is happy with the responses re. sourcing I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Only minor issues/nitpicks:

Spotchecks not carried out
Citations 2 and 3: Can you clarify who the publishers are?

@Brianboulton:I'm just using the patent template which I assume lists the correct info. I'm not sure a "publisher" detail adds anything of value.

Citation 6: the link is worthless as the preview does not include the source pages

I have updated the link.

Citation 9: link goes to Google search page

Fixed.

Citation 15: per MoS, "Imperial War Museum" should not be italicised

I am once again relying on the cite template for this, is it really the case that the template violates the MOS? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a MoS problem, it's to do with your choice of parameters within the template. You have chosen "website= Imperial War Museum", but the IWM is not a website, it's the organisation that publishes the website, the address of which is www.iwm.org.uk. So you could use "publisher= Imperial War Museum" or "website= www.iwm.org.uk". Either would be correct, though my personal preference is for publisher=. which is more informative. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Doing a walk-through to assess readiness for promotion and I've taken the liberty of fixing this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the minor issues raised above, the sources appear to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability and are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.