Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/H2S (radar)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

H2S (radar)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

My first addition in a while. This article has been in good shape for some time now, I did some GR touches and a read-over. I think it's good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

I think this is a great article, and a magnificent effort. Just a few comments:

Jones (1978) and Rowe (1948) are not used as references. Suggest moving to the Further Reading section. (Also: link Reginald Victor Jones)
Typos: "kilometers", "center", {{sfn|Lovell|1991|p=225} (missing brace)
Don't abbreviate sergeant as "Sgt" (or WWII)
Should "Doppler" be capitalised?
Should "windspeed" be two words?
Link RPM since the kids have never seen a record player
and de Havilland Mosquito so they don't think you're talking about an insect
Stirling is used before it is linked. As is Halifax.
Link Würzburg and Zuiderzee
In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric. (MOS:METRIC)
'One of the dead was Alan Blumlein, and his loss was a huge blow to the programme." How so?
"The H2S team also protested that it would take the Germans two years to develop a centimetric radar once the cavity magnetron fell into their hands, and that there was no reason to believe they weren't working on the technology already. The first concern would prove correct; the second would be proven wrong." As written, it means that there was reason to believe the German were working on the technology already. I'm not sure that is what you meant though.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Gebus Hawk, I totally forgot about this nom. All of the above are addressed, and a few "realized" as well. If there are still kilometers that's the convert template's fault. The METRIC issue is historical, these units were imperial at the time and I avoid changing units in these cases to avoid double conversion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was still one "kilometer"; the problem was an sp=us parameter which I have removed. Also there were still three "center"s, all corrected too. The order of appearance can be changed using the convert template order=flip parameter so no double conversion is required. I made a set of changes. [1] MOS::METRIC is not required since MOS conformance is not mandatory. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Don't know much about radar, but I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Move the link for Luftwaffe to the first mention

Magnetron debate

It's implied, but it might be best to state that the magneton is apparently a form of military technology the Brits developed before the Germans
"In the midst of the debate, Isidor Isaac Rabi of the American Radiation Laboratory visited the TRE offices on 5 and 6 July 1942. He stated that the H2S device provided to them during the Tizard Mission was "unscientific and unworkable" and expressed his feelings that the only use of it would be to hand the magnetron to the Germans" ... "Years later, Lovell attempted to discover the reasons for this negative report, but he found that no one recalled Rabi being so negative" - both sourced to Lovell. So if Lovell found that nobody recalled Rabi being so negative, then you'll want to find a source independent from Lovell to support what Rabi stated. Or at least attribute that to Lovell. Because Lovell stating that he couldn't find corroboration for his memory casts doubt on that.

Emergency relocation

"In retrospect, this decision seems particularly odd given that it was even more exposed to the enemy than their original location at Bawdsey Manor" - Needs attribution, we can't really say that something is particularly odd in retrospect in Wikipedia's voice

Operational use

", and there simply weren't enough to go around" - Rewrite to avoid contractions. I've seen at least one other contraction in this section, so keep an eye out for it

Rotterdam Gerat

"and it was also realised that building a complete radar system using it would take some time" - where in ref 48 is this found?

Stopping after the Rotterdam Gerat section, will continue soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war

"After VE day, all models earlier than the Mk. IIIG were declared obsolete," - You'll want to link VE day, as not everyone will know that, unfortunately
"The last use in combat was made by the Vulcans of the Operation Black Buck flights in 1982, which used the system as the primary navigation and bombing aid throughout the 7,000 miles (11,000 km) round trips to and from Ascension Island" - In the lead, you directly refer to this as an action of the Falklands War, so you'll want to name the Falklands War in the body, to match

References

Bob Shaw (DAHG) is a wordpress site. What are Shaw's credentials to pass WP:SPS?
Publisher and date needed for "British Air Intelligence report on 7./NJG 2 Ju 88G-1 night fighter"
Goebel appears to be a victim of domain squatting

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: All are addressed. Goebel link updated. Bob Shaw is the author of several well known books on RAF history. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: - Anticipate supporting. Just got a couple wrinkles to iron first. The Air Intelligence report still needs the publisher/date, and just want to double check that Goebel meets SPS? Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date added, Goebel lists all his refs so that's good on that front. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with the comment that Goebel might be challenged further at a FAC source review, as those have gotten tighter lately. Hog Farm _Talk 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, I was going to do a source review, but am unsure if your comments above already constitute one? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I looked at sources a bit, but I wouldn't consider it to be a full source review. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

Missing hyphens in ground scanning, S band cavity, 1950s era, time base, X band version, tail warning radar, magnetron based radar, Airborne Interception radar, dead reckoning calculations, target indicator operationsm, weather radar systems, moving target indication, V bomber force

@Sturmvogel 66: Not one single reference I have, including the wartime originals, puts hyphens in any of these terms, so I'm going with that :-)

Watson's Radar Origins Worldwide hyphenates all radar bands. I'll grant you AI radar, but the others are simple compound adjectives which are only hyphenated if they precede a noun. So V-bomber force, but an individual V bomber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither supporting or opposing as most of my list of words needing hyphens still have not been hyphenated, although some have been rewritten to not require a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thousands of Watts decapitalize

Done.

The Halifax V9977 pictured at RAF Hurn. This aircraft crashed in June 1942, killing several radar engineers, including Alan Blumlein.

Reword to emphasize that this was the aircraft carrying the prototype radar. And minimize duplication of info between the text and the caption

Done.

I'd delete the entire second sentence of the caption as redundant to the main text--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US was, at this time, deep into the development of an ASV set using a magnetron, so work on H2S continued as there appeared to be no reason to continue their own ASV when the US would soon provide one. Confusing since H2S and ASV were essentially the same, so wouldn't the logic apply to cancelling H2S as well?

I just removed this part, I was not entirely clear on what Lovell was saying in this passage.

Captions are considered sentence fragments and generally don't use full stops at their ends

Depends on the caption, note that ones that are fragments don't have the stops.

Is a cyclone of fire a British term? Because I've never seen it before. If not I'd suggest using the far more common firestorm

Fixed.

Link Staffel, Ju 88

Added.

In July 1944, Ju 88G-1, of 7 Staffel/ Delete the commas and "a" Ju 88G-1

Yeah, not sure who added those.

Several other units Units is confusing, just use radar

Fixed.

where the short local horizon would require guidance on smaller objects like particular buildings Confusing. Do you mean that longer-wavelength radars would have a shorter range at lower altitudes, or that the greater resolution of the K-band version would allow it to pick out individual buildings, or both?

The later, reworded.

Capitalize Lend-Lease and I suggest that you refer to it as the Lend-Lease programme

Done.

Not seeing a whole lot of value in using aircraft serial numbers

Just copying the style from other articles of the type.

That's an argument I've had with other editors as I consider it excessive detail in an encyclopedia unless the aircraft is notable in its own right.

and was eventually relegated to the status of purely experimental awkward

Fixed?

Not perfect, but I can't think of a better phrasing off the top of my head right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

post-war realities I think that you mean austerities

Fixed.

Remember to add |adj=on to the conversion template to change the measurement into the adjectival form, I've done a couple for you already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sturm, did you have any other comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lemme check for any changes to the missing hyphens in my first bullet--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still waiting for responses to my 30 April comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see ones from the 29th? For clarity, can you re-list any open items? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to see my 30 April comments and respond to them, everything else has been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury, a few outstanding comments above need a response. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I'm not seeing anything here still requiring a response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK Hawkeye7, happy to defer to your view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sturmvogel 66, can you clarify if you are supporting promotion or not here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again Sturmvogel 66. Can you just clarify where we are here? Preferably in dot point form to ensure Maury understands what it is that needs to be done to address your outstanding comments? I'm going to archive this in a week if there are no further supports. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remain baffled about why my first bullet point remains so hard for people to find. Maury feels no need to hyphenate words that I believe require them. Fair enough, but I'm neither supporting nor opposing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

Why are some cited works in "Bibliography" and some in "Citations"?

Items used once or in only one section are in the former.

Why?

The chosen style is up to the author. I like this one because it saves clicking twice for an item that is only used once.

Saward (1985): add the ISBN.

Has it? Someone else may have edited.

Please add the ISBN.

Added

Some works have publisher locations, some don't: be consistent.

I do not see any. Perhaps someone else edited.

Saward (1985) and Bowen, for example, have no publisher locations. Bowman and Brown, for example, do. Please be consistent.

Be consistent in how ISBNs are hyphenated, or not.

Fixed.

Jones' ISBN is hyphenated differently from other works.

Fixed.

External links: could both AP2890L and blunham.com Radar have more descriptive titles.

Did not add those.

Is AP2890L meant to be there?

Seems useful, its the original manual.

Perhaps that could be stated in the link description?

Added.

"Picture of an installed H2S unit" is dead, as is Picture of a Lancaster's Fishpond display and R1154/T1154 receiver/transmitter.

Both work fine for me?

Thay don't for me, and see [2], last two items.

Oh, I thought you referring to the actual images. Both links removed.

Note a is not referenced; Note b has a non-standard reference.

a is removed, b is fine.

Book titles should be in title case.

Please be specific.

For example Saward 1985, Longmate; there may be others.

Fixed.

Several works are missing available identifiers - eg ISBNs, JSTOR refs, doi's.

I added one isbn, if you can provide the rest I'll be happy to add them.

No, that is the nominator's role, not the reviewer's.

Can't find any additional ones.

What makes "Microwave Radar At War" a reliable source?

The general rule is that if the source lists is references, which it does.

Which policy or guideline are you relying on for this "general rule"?

SPS.

Where it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Could you be more specific as to why and how "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" applies and why the second sentence doesn't? Thanks.

Green: I would expect to see all of the following: |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date=. See Template:Cite web.

It seems to have all those?

Are you citing a journal or a web page? The by line of the page - "The site for electronic design engineers" - would suggest the latter.

The article was published in print before the web site carried article content.

@Gog the Mild:?

Sort those out and ping me and I'll do some spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pings only work if they are signed.

@Gog the Mild: Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longmate should come before Lovell.

Moved.

What system are you using to order works without a clear author? Eg Sitzungsprotokolle der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rotterdam, AP1903D, Introductory Survey of Radar, Part II and the External links.

None.

I have added a number of comments and queries to my origanal comments, above.

Commented.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. All resolved bar the reliability of "Microwave Radar At War", see my comment above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury, this one needs to be addressed for the source review to be completed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all references to Goebel. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

G'day, Maury, I have a few minor comments; apologies if any of these have already been mentioned: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there are a few instances of overlink reported by the tool: Tizard Mission, Handley Page Halifax, night fighter, Monica (radar), Air Interception Radar, antenna (radio), Pathfinder Force, RAF Defford, Vickers Wellington, dead reckoning,

Got them all I think.

at five paragraphs the lead technically has too many paragraphs per MOS:LEAD; suggest merging if possible

It was, but people keep separating out the last part.

"didn't", "weren't", "hadn't" and "wasn't" --> probably best to avoid contractions in formal writing

Removed all except hadn't, which was the original term.

Sorry, I don't understand your rationale here -- are you saying it is a quote? If so, it should appear in quotation marks, surely? If not a quote, then you have the artistic licence to rectify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are there page numbers that you could add for citations 37, 48 and 54?

37 is basically the entire book, 48 has no page numbers, 54 has them but they are not part of the original report.

Please see below for my follow ups: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for ref 37 - how long is the book? I think you will need to provide some sort of page range ultimately unless it is very short

for ref 48 - you could probably provide the relevant paragraph number as they are numbered (you could use the |at= function in the template), or you could use the page numbers while making it clear you are using a facsmile edition/digitised copy of the report (not the original edition)

for ref 54 - as it is only four pages long, it is probably ok not to provide page numbers for this work

I think that the first entry of the Further reading section is technically an External link

I'm not sure I understand the difference in this case?

G'day, yes, I agree that it can be hard to differentiate but IMO the further reading section tends to be related solely to books, I believe; I can see an argument that the minutes are a further reading item, so I won't die in a ditch over it, but I suspect you would be asked to move it if you took this to FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the Bibliography, suggest adding page ranges for Campbell's chapter in Grande
not sure about this link for Campbell's chapter: [3], I couldn't find where it leads to the book. Am I missing something?

Trying to get this to work.

title case caps: "Bomber" Harris, the authorized biography" --> "Bomber" Harris: The Authorized Biography"?

Fixed.

suggest removing publication locations from Bowman and Brown for consistency of style (as you haven't used them for others)

Removed.

title case caps: "The bombers : the RAF offensive against Germany, 1939-1945" --> The Bombers: The RAF Offensive Against Germany, 1939–1945"?

fixed

-ise or -ize consistency: I don't mind either way, but I see "stablized" and "realised". Suggest consistency

And I keep suggesting it to my spelling checker, but it continues to change this on me. I will do a run-through for these at the end of the process.

"Cherwell related to others (including R.V. Jones)" --> just "Jones" at this point as he has already been introduced

Fixed.

"It was noted on even the earliest flights of V9977": suggest stating who noted this

Not recorded in my sources. I assume this is "the operators".

"This led to concerns that the Germans might repay the favour in kind" --> "This led to concerns that the Germans might launch a similar raid on British installations"? (a bit more formal?)

Fixed.

"magnetron to the Germans. Churchill's": full name and link on first mention?

Not sure it's REALLY needed for "this guy", but added.

"Unfortunately, more rigorous testing": probably best to avoid the term "unfortunately" as it can be seen to imply a point of view

Removed. @AustralianRupert:

Sorry, I missed this ping originally; I don't think it worked because it was not signed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Anything more to add? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for the ping, Hawkeye. I have added some follow ups above. Sorry for the delay -- have been in an an area without secure internet due to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe everything above, with the exception of hyphenation, has been completed in my last series of edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day AustralianRupert, when you get a chance mate, can you check if you are happy with Maury's responses? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: G'day, apologies but no, at this stage my concerns have not been fully addressed. The issues outlined in dot points 3 and 4 above with regards to page numbering and use of contractions remain (albeit the citation numbers have been updated - now # 4, 28, 61 and Campbell in the Bibliography). The link for Campbell is still problematic also, IMO (dot point seven in my original post) and Longmate should appear before Lovell in the Bibliography (alphabetical order) - new point, sorry, I think I missed this earlier. That said, maybe I am in the minority here in stating these as issues? If the source reviewer doesn't think it is a problem, then maybe it isn't. Regardless, I am not able to specifically support at this time; I will not oppose on these nitpicks, either though, as my review isn't a full review anyway, so an oppose would not be fair. As such, if you wish to close it as successful on the basis of the earlier supports, then please do so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Maury Markowitz. It seems to me that you either need to address AustralianRupert's outstanding comments, or Sturmvogel 66's outstanding comments (or both preferably), to obtain the minimum three supports so it can pass. We have already left it open far longer than we would normally. If either changes to a support, I will promote it. I'll give you a week to address one or the other, or I'll have to archive it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

1) Page numbers;

 #4 is Cunningham? I do not have the book and did not add that section.
 #28 is Green? It's three screens long and searchable, so I'm not sure what value this adds, but I have added sections anyway.

2) the URL for Campbell was missing a "f" and is now working. 3) I have moved the references to be alphabetic. 4) There appears to be a dangling issue with Further Reading above, but I just read the page on that and see no claims about it having to be a book. 5) Sturm's 30 April entries, which read 29 April on my screen BTW, have been addressed with the exception of the hyphen in radar bands and the second sentence in the caption. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is everything? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think I've given you a "bum steer" in relation to the citation numbers (sorry) - they keep changing, so I am clearly confusing myself. Let's move away from me quoting numbers and move to author/work names for clarity. Green is fine - you are correct about it being short enough; sorry, not sure what happened here (uppercut self administered). Cunningham, Shaw, the ADI K report and the British Air Int Report are the citations that concern me in relation to page numbers. If you did not add Cunningham, potentially you can get someone to check the page numbers over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I confirm that the Campbell link now works, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, it isn't clear if AustralianRupert will support if these area addressed (perhaps he could clarify), but Sturm isn't. Therefore if AustralianRupert supports once his final comments are addressed, this can be promoted. If he doesn't, I'm archiving this because it doesn't have the requisite supports. It has been open far too long. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, PM, to clarify my original review did not look at the article as a whole, so I cannot support at the moment regardless of what is done regarding the page numbers. I would need to read through it more thoroughly to do so as it has been a long time since I read it the first time (June). I am happy to do this, if Maury wishes, in the interests of getting it over the line, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment -- travelling home at the moment after spending the majority of the year away from the family. Mentally I am not in the right space to read and fully comprehend an article like this one at the moment. I am sorry. When I finally get home (which is potentially in a week or so), I may be able to do so depending upon family commitments, but I would probably prefer to wait until the issues with the page numbers have been resolved. Incidentally, if other reviewers disagree with my request for page numbers, I am more than happy to strike my concerns and move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added section numbers instead of pages. The only exception is the reference I did not add. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Shaw, the ADI K report and the British Air Int Report (per my comment at 14:43 on 16 Oct 21)? Have you asked at the the Resource Exchange if someone there can help with Cunningham? Regardless of what I said about waiting for this to be resolved before re-reading, in the interests of trying to get this review closed, I have gone through the article again and will post my comments/suggestions below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have had time to re-read the article. Overall, I found it to be well written and informative, although a little colloquial in places. Nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, "over large cities like Berlin" --> move the link for Berlin to the first mention

Added.

in the lead, " In this form, H2S was last used in anger" --> " In this form, H2S was last used operationally"?

hmm, ok.

in the lead, the year 1993 is mentioned in relation to the Victor, but this year does not seem to appear in the body of the article

Added.

Etymology section, perhaps clarify what role Jones and Cherwell played (very briefly -- possibly all that is needed is a subordinate clause for each)

Added. Some re-work to make it read well.

contractions: "didn't" and "hadn't" -- if these are quotes, then they should be in quote marks, if not, IMO they should not be used in formal writing

Fixed.

"only one bomb in twenty was within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the target" --> "only one bomb in twenty was landing within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the target"?

Added.

"mathematical function that defined": link "function"

Added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"output thousands of watts of radio" --> link "watt"

This has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"cosecant-squared rule": is there a link for this? Maybe Cosecant squared antenna?

That works.

"Blumlein's colleagues Cecil Oswald Browne and Frank Blythen; a TRE scientist Geoffrey S. Hensby": are these people wiki notable? If so, suggest adding redlinks -- if not, no worries

The only mentions I found of any of these was in relation to the crash.

"simply didn not show anything" --> typo

Fixed.

"-ize" and "-ise": currently there is a mixture in the article (e.g. prioritize and stabilizer, but also realise, suggest consistency
"The Airborne team moved" --> "The airborne team moved"

This is a proper name.

Fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"moved to RAF St Athan, about 15 miles (24 km) from Cardiff" - do we know the date of this move? Or a rough timeframe?

Late 1939, added.

" selection of Swanage on the southern coast of the UK": rough timeframe of this?

This is still outstanding as far as I can tell, but it is a minor point and doesn't diminish the quality of the article, IMO. Moving on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"located in shacks located on the shoreline" --> reword to avoid saying "located" twice in quick succession

Added and re-worded.

"On 25 May 1942, commandos carried out Operation Biting to capture" --> not sure about Commandos here, it was a Para unit, I believe?

Changed to Combined Ops.

Ok. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"across the English Channel from Christchurch": link for Christchurch?

Added.

"but a navigation aid as well" --> " but also as a navigation aid"?

yes.

"hand-built to equip the Pathfinder Force": remove the link to Pathfinders as it is already linked earlier

Fixed.

"H2S had been fitted to Lancasters": remove the link here to Lancasters, already linked earlier

Fixed.

"the Mk. IIA versions" --> "the Mk. IIA version"?

Fixed.

"Late in April 1942" --> "In late April 1942"?

Seems correct as is?

Either is fine grammatically, but the second seems smoother, IMO. Either way, it is a minor point, so I will not labour the point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dudley Saward visited" -- what was Saward's role? I think you clarify it later "in charge of Bomber Command's radar efforts", but perhaps it should be mentioned on first mention?

This has been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Seward" or "Saward"? Both are used

Both fixed.

"Seward supplied an electronics technician, Sergeant Walker" --> do we know Walker's first name? If not, no worries

Not mentioned anywhere I could find.

Ok, no worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"When the photos reached the desk of Robert Saundby": rank and role?

Added, hopefully correct as his position changed right at about this time.

Suggest adding his full military rank, not just his appointment, if known - I assume Air Vice Marshal? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Two hundred of the prototype model" --> "Two hundred examples of the prototype model"?

Added.

"the bomber would change their heading" --> "the crew would change the bomber's heading"?

Reworded.

"Defense Research Board" --> Defence Research Board? (Canadian English variation?)

Fixed.

"calling their unit H2X, and was being deployed on American bombers by October 1943" --> "calling their unit H2X. It was deployed on American bombers by October 1943"?

Reworded.

"and any still equipped with Monica was told to turn it off" --> "and the crews of any aircraft still equipped with Monica had been told to turn it off"?

Reworded.

"By this time the country was already in a shambles" --> "By this time Germany was on the brink of defeat"?

This has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"target marking operations for Pathfinder Force" --> "target marking operations for the Pathfinder Force"

Added.

"larger "whirligig" reflector" -- you probably don't need the quote marks as the term has been introduced earlier; would suggest making linking on first mention, also

Quotes removed... but which link do you refer to here?

Whirligig; added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

link V-force to V bomber on first mention

Added.

"Wimpy: A Detailed History of the Vickers Wellington in service" --> "Wimpy: A Detailed History of the Vickers Wellington in Service" (title case caps)

Fixed.

Most excellent work AustralianRupert. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, this looks to constitute a much-needed full review now, so if you could address ARs comments we could look to get this up soon. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I made a couple of minor adjustments per this edit: [4]. I remain concerned about the lack of page numbers for certain sources, but given my comments from 16 Oct and 6 Nov have been ignored, I will drop the stick and move on. I have added my support above in the interests of getting this one closed, but would strongly encourage you to rectify the page number issue before FAC if you head down that path. Once again, congratulations on a fine article and good luck with taking it further if you decide to keep working on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.