Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AI Mk. IV radar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2014 (diff).

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar, if existing histories are complete (one would hope after almost a century). Although not a tremendous success, it filled an important gap in coverage during critical periods of the war, and perhaps more importantly, acted as the basis for many other very successful radar systems like the ASV and Type 7. It's also a story complete with infighting, backstabbing, rushed moves, incompetence and lucky breaks.

This article was created offline over a three month period, so it appears ex nihlo largely complete. With the exception of some GR and SP, and some ongoing work sourcing additional images and switching cites (I'm using original authors where possible, as opposed to newer sources), the article should be largely complete and stable.

I think it's a fascinating bit of history, and I hope you will to.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Several captions need editing for grammar, particularly punctuation
  • File:Handley_Page_Heyford.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Fairey_Battle_ExCC.jpg: approximate date?
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is redirecting
  • File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg: source link is redirecting
  • File:AI_Mk_IV_simulated_display.jpg: not seeing licensing info at source link - where does the CC license come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which captions need editing? As to the sourcing I can only speak to the last one, it's filed with ORTS and we're just waiting for it to get stamped as such. As to the rest, as they are all clearly in PD, do we need to fix any of these issues? If so, is that my job or the up loaders? I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to be able to verify that the information given is correct if you're going to be using those images in a potential FA. Captions in particular need of editing include RDF 1.5, ASV emerges, Baedeker Blitz, and Displays and interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the captions you mentioned above, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with them. Can you be very specific, or simply fix them? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images have been replaced with sourced versions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jamesx12345

  • Refs 85, 93 and 95 don't point to anything at the moment.
  • "shot up" - this sounds like a bad pun. "Increased rapidly" might be more appropriate.
  • "The Mk. IV began being replaced at the end of 1941 by the prototype Mk. VII" - "The prototype Mk. VII began to replace the Mk. IV at the end of 1941"
  • "could only be expected to" - was this the designers' assessment, and does the inaccuracy result from this delay or something else? A reference for this statement would be nice.
I got all of these except one. The last one is interesting - if you found the wording difficult, perhaps you can come up with another way to say it. The basic idea is that each of the reporting systems -huff-duff, CH and ROC- had slightly different *in*accuracies so if you plotted the reports on a map you didn't get a single point but three separated ones. Additionally, the target aircraft were moving throughout this process. So unless you have zero reporting times, by the time you get the instructions to the fighter pilot the target is long gone. The intercept officers were trained to estimate the future location of the target based on interpolating the movement of the reports, but this was based on old and conflicting information. All of this added up. Do you think I should expand this section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey James, I found some discussion of the accuracy issue in Bowen's book, which you can see on Google Books - at least it's visible to me, who knows what they'll let you see! I added two relevant mentions from that book, let me know if you think the statement is OK to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect - it reads more nicely as well. Jamesx12345 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forefathers" - "predecessors"
  • "arranged before they reached" - "arranged before the bombers reached" - bit clearer
  • "the first definition of the technical" - I think criteria might be a better word.
  • "was not available, at least not in portable form" - "was not available in portable form"
  • Daventry Experiment can be linked.
  • "...radar systems at this period of the war." - is it a war yet?
  • "further increase in power to as much as 2 kW" - is that peak or continual?
All in James! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the first two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Maury, welcome to FAC.
  • "was the ultimate model": I know you mean "final", but the other meanings (best, defining, etc.) are more common, and some readers don't get the "final" meaning at all.
  • "First considered in 1936,": I don't actually know what that means. Did someone think it would be a nice thing to have? Did they do some pencil sketches? Did they build a prototype?
  • "rushed moves and three abandoned production designs": Does the "rushed moves" mean something other than rushing three designs into production and then abandoning them?
  • "offered detection ranges against large aircraft on the order of 20,000 feet": Reading quickly, I saw one test at exactly 20,000 feet ... what was the variation in this (at sufficient altitude), roughly?
  • " It used two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for display and considerable effort was required on the part of the radar operator to translate these into instructions for the pilot.": Not a major point, go with this if it works for you: "Considerable effort was required of the radar operator to interpret the displays of its two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the pilot." - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, I've added all of these. And yes, that definitely worked for me :-) Detection ranges were given 18 to 20k feet against German bombers, which may be simply due to differences in sizes of the different bombers - I assume a Do 17 is harder to see than a He 111. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also made a few edits to the lede to help clarify the "rushed moves" bit. See if that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Ian's note below ... Maury, I don't have any objections right now, I may come back to this when the reviews are farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please provide a conversion for metric wavelengths for US readers on first use, and any other metric only measurements as well.
  • Expand the abbreviation of RDF on first use.
  • A Ford what? Motor car or Trimotor?
  • Link igition coil, RAF squadrons and be sure to capitalize Squadron if giving the squadron number,
  • revive RDF 1.5 concept "the" RDF
  • Tell the reader that W is an abbreviation for watt. Furthermore, watt isn't normally capitalized. Same for other electrial units like volts, etc.
  • Fix your overlinks.
  • Just like you do for ships, you need to tell the reader what kind of aircraft they are.
  • You give the impression that the Blen conversions were done to make them more suitable for the night fighter role. This is not the case, they were done to give the RAF long-range fighters. Happily their extra endurance and size made them suitable for the NF role. So rephrase that bit to explain that properly. In every aircraft-oriented source I've got the terminal letter in RAF designations is capitalized, not lower case.
  • No. 25 what? Squadron? Done through operation use. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources I used refer to this radar as a "1.5 meter" in "class terms". That includes US sources from this era. I do not use the term to indicate an exact measure, that is 193 MHz.
OK
I don't know what Ford, the source simply says "Ford ignition coil".
Ok.
I don't understand. "RDF 1.5" is a name for a class of devices, shouldn't it be read with a "the" in front, like "the dishwasher"?
As you used it, "RDF 1.5 concept" doesn't refer to any device, but rather the idea behind the devices. So "the RDF 1.5 concept".
Ahh, it was a different instance.
Done.
Which over links? Is there a tool for finding them?
Add this script
Very useful!
Sorry, I don't understand which aircraft you mean.
All of them where you don't tell the reader what type it is on first use. Forex, you refer to the Spitfire without telling the reader that it's a fighter, etc.
Done.
Do you have a source for this? I know that the Blenheim article states this, but it is not references, and both Brown and Bowen have passages that suggest the opposite. The same is true for the lower-case "f", which is found throughout Bowen, Brown, Lovell and others. I will add a note about this.
The Air Ministry approved the addition of a four-gun belly pack to the Blenheim I, converting it into the Blenheim IF, in late 1938 and the Blenheim IVF entered service in August 1939. So both variants considerably predated service use of AI radar. And the terminal letter is capitalized in histories of the aircraft, so I can only presume that the radar historians either didn't care about such details or were ignorant of the proper format. See Chaz Bowyer, Bristol Blenheim, isbn 0-7110-1351-9, pp. 22, 27.
This is precisely my concern though - the book you note was written in 1984, so is it more likely that the people actually flying in the aircraft got it wrong, or that in the 50 years between the events and the publication of this book that historians "selected" a particular format? I should note that during that same period, we've changed the basic way we write dates twice, our entire measurement system, and dropped the hyphen from just about everything. I'll change them, but I'm worried about confusion as the text will no longer match the primary references.
While I understand your point, I don't necessarily credit it. I suspect that the boffins who were the sources for Brown, et al., neither knew nor cared about the proper format for the designation of their aircraft. Generally, they weren't the ones filling out the paperwork for the aircraft and were likely less exposed to documents on the aircraft itself in comparison to the radar and electric systems of the aircraft that they were likely responsible for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found one instance. Any others?
Haven't gotten that far.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could post your replies directly under each individual comment as it assists me if matching up replies to the appropriate comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be mostly offline until early next week, so I'll take this up again at that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, another "holiday". Uggg. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done?

All of the notes above have been completed. What do we do to drive this forward? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you haven't already, pls ping the reviewers above to check that they believe their comments are resolved and that there's nothing more that they think requires work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sorry for the delay, but I've been distracted by a cross-country move.
  • There was only one Blenheim II built, an unsuccessful reconnaissance variant, so none were available to be converted into IIFs. Also, the conversion into the F model wasn't experimental at all.
Both Brown and White call it a II. Is there the possibility that the single unit was converted to NF use?
Possible; as my really thorough book on the Blenheim is packed away, I really can't say that it didn't happen.
  • Provide a conversion for 20 mm on first use and five miles.
20mm is a name not a dimension, five miles converted.
In this case, it's not a name at all, but it is a measurement and so needs to be converted. If you'd used 20 mm Hispano cannon, I'd have accepted that as the link is equivalent to the conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure that Dowding's rejection of non-AI methods to defeat the Blitz led to his dismissal, but it's been years since I read up on that part of the BoB.
Directly stated in Zimmerman, White and several other sources. Occurred immediately after he dismissed the second of the two night fighting reports.
Fair enough; I can't say for sure one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase this The Germans were beginning their attacks in the east to state that they were preparing for the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia as well as committing aircraft to the Western Desert.
Details of the Luftwaffe's order of battle are well covered elsewhere. As all of these are east of UK, I'm not sure more detail is warranted.
Maybe so, but I think that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You needn't list all of the operations causing the withdrawals, but you need to do something in case a bloke starts wondering, "'Ere, what's 'e going on about?"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to 604 Squadron and fix capitalization
Fixed.
  • Apostrophe missing Luftwaffes
Awaiting details on technical issue. FIXED.
Now I'm curious what the technical issue was? The triple apostrophe marks when using a possessive with an italicized word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
double-singles at the start, triple singles at the end. used to work, must have stopped working some time 06/07.
  • This is a little confusing: they would approach at low altitude and then dive again after releasing their bombs, making interceptions with the Mk. IV possible only during the period when the bomber climbed for its bomb run. Move the bit about climbing to the beginning of the sentence to keep the sequencing straight for the reader.
Fixed.
  • This is awkward: During a flight in February 1941 at 20,000 feet (6.1 km) he suddenly awoke in an ambulance on the ground;[121] his oxygen supply had failed. I see no need for the semi-colon, just combine the two sentences as they naturally flow together.
Fixed.
  • superior of the Mk. IV Shouldn't this be "to" rather than "of"?
Fixed.
  • Missing a word: but they had such a low priority the conversions were not complete
Fixed.

Through up to description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left are the refs, which I'll do shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eggcelent. Excellent work BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Make sure that all article and book titles are in title case.
Fixed.
Not exactly, see #108.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does #29 spell out the info for Brown when it's listed in the Bibliography.
Good question. Removed bib entry.
Should have done it the other way given your rationale below as it's heavily cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Brown :-) This is a Louis.
Right now your links (harv cites?) don't work at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly suggest moving all spelled-out book and article info from the citations to the bibliography. This will allow readers to better access them when you add the necessary OCLC or ISBN number.
I'm not strongly attached to any particular style here, but I have generally followed the rule that if the entry is used more than once it is separated out, otherwise inline.
Understood, but the problem is that it causes problems for the reader if the work isn't linked or provided with a OCLC or ISBN number. For example, how am I supposed to find a copy of the pamphlet cited in #1? Not online and cataloging can be highly idiosyncratic possibly making it hard to find on an independent search of WorldCat or similar database. I'll not insist on moving everything to the bibliography, although I think that that's the best practice for articles, but I will insist on everything that isn't linked online to be provided with OCLC or ISBN number. You've been pretty good about linking things to Google books so it shouldn't be too much work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What makes #102 and 107 highly reliable?
107 - http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/about-the-author.htm. Given the claim is double-backed it could be removed, but I don't see a point in this case. 102 has been replaced by the original source.
#102: obviously a guy transcribing the official history or operational log. But without some sort of file number or better sourcing, it's nothing more a guy with a computer and fails WP:RS and V. #108: All I see is a college graduate with a website, not a published author. Fails RS outright as I see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got one, working the other.
  1. Put the books in alphabetical order. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done (someone already did it seems).

All refs noted above have been updated to new ones. No idea how to fix the harv, I'm not sure it's even something I did? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PING: With the exception of an ISBN for something that doesn't appear to have one (AP), everything mentioned above is complete. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:16, 3 September 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/archive1&oldid=625285467"