- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Airborne Cigar
ALT0: ... that Airborne Cigar confused German night fighters by broadcasting noise over the commands of their ground controllers?Source: Sugarman p.190 and all the other refs- ALT1: ... that Airborne Cigar confused German night fighters by broadcasting sound over the voices of their ground controllers? Source: Sugarman p.190 and all the other refs
- Comment: I had nommed this on the 6th but I guess I didn't press save. I'm 12 hours over the limit.
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
- Reviewed Nicholas Robertson (ice hockey)
New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Images are freely licensed. QPQ done. Please add an inline cite for the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Cite #5 does so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: what's the sentence, please? Yoninah (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- New enough (AGF on the delay in posting), long enough, within policy, QPQ done. The hook is ok for length and interestingness, but the article nowhere states that jamming consisted of broadcasting noise. It does say that Tinsel broadcast aircraft engine noise, that Cigar fulfilled the same task as Tinsel at VHF, and that Airborne Cigar was an airborne version of
TinselCigar. So it is implied by a three-step induction, but if it is to be used as the hook it really needs to be directly in the article. Also, the Sugarman source you cited above says the jamming consists of a note running up and down the scale rather than the Tinsel engine noise. SpinningSpark 12:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Yoninah, you edit conflicted me and I did not realise you had done a full review. I only read the last line. SpinningSpark 12:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: no problem; you can continue. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: "jamming consists of a note running up and down the scale" - well that's what I'd call noise, as our own article puts it, "Noise is unwanted sound considered unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing" But perhaps you have some other term that is more correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- In an ECM context (and electronics generally) the term noise used unqualified would usually imply some sort of stochastic noise. But that is not really the objection. The point is, firstly, that the fact is not stated explicity in the article, and secondly, that the implicitly referred to noise is apparently not the noise used by this system. SpinningSpark 15:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so you don't call it noise, what would you call it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark:How about that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- In an ECM context (and electronics generally) the term noise used unqualified would usually imply some sort of stochastic noise. But that is not really the objection. The point is, firstly, that the fact is not stated explicity in the article, and secondly, that the implicitly referred to noise is apparently not the noise used by this system. SpinningSpark 15:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Then what exactly is holding up this nom? You had two issues, one about "implicit" assumptions and another stating that the article does not state it plays noise over the ground controller frequencies. The hook states neither, and the fact that it plays sound over the ground controller frequencies is well established in the articles and the refs. So what exactly is the problem now? Please be precise, I can't read your mind. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please fix the issue with post-discussion editing of the hook. I won't do a new review until that is done. Please quote here the exact passage from the article which you think supports the hook (either the old one or the new one). SpinningSpark 18:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: Please return to the nomination and respond to Spinningspark's concerns. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- @SpinningSpark: would you like to make a verdict? I doubt this person is coming back. It's been a week since their last edit. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to recommend it as it stands. The hook is not directly cited as required by DYK and the article conflates two slightly different methods of jamming. This is a shame since it is an issue that is easily fixed, but I'm not willing to do it myself when the creator seems to be so opposed to it. SpinningSpark 22:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: In your last comment, you say the hook is not directly cited, but it clearly is in the lede. You then state "the article conflates two slightly different methods of jamming", but I am unclear on which two methods you refer to. The cite in question states "Initially in its infant stages, ‘Jostle’ used a simplistic form of frequency jamming. A microphone mounted in one of the engine compartments was found to be effective. I don’t think anyone who has heard the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin engine under full power would disagree! However, later developments relied upon an undulating pitch that served just as successful in preventing the transmission of instructions to the Luftwaffe night fighters." I do not see the problem here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm now asking you for the third time to revert your editing of the hook and propose any change as an alt hook. Editing the hook after discussion of it has begun causes confusion and in some cases the comments are unintelligible. If you are not willing to do that I'm just going to unwatch this page and not respond any further.
- I had not previously noticed that you had a cite in the lead. My comments on conflation were based on what the article body said and the Sugarman source. But now that you've brought it to my attention, it seems of dubious reliability. It is a website run by one person, much of which is written in the first person, and who does not seem to qualify as an expert under WP:SPS as far as I can see. To quote the source itself, "There are published books, which deal with this system in some detail, written by people far more qualified than I." SpinningSpark 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Well we're into month two here, so in the interest of speeding this along, would you agree that this statement supports the hook and meets SPS:
- "The jamming caused a loud and constantly varying note running up and down the scale of the relevant speech channel" - Sugarman
If so I will change the cite. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A new reviewer is needed as Spinningspark has indicated on their talk page that they are no longer willing to comment further here. Courtesy ping to Yoninah as the only other commenter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)- I am almost afraid to ask, but what hook is being discussed, what is the corrsponding line in the text, and what is the citation? --evrik (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
This review is in response to the new-reviewer request above. Having read through all the above comments, for the record I have added the original hook (copied from the first edit of this template) to the top of the page as ALT0, and I have struck it out because some reviewers did not like the word "noise". I re-named the hook that was subsequently edited by the creator Maury Markowitz as ALT1. On the understanding that ALT1 is more acceptable (by at least some of the above editors) than ALT0, this review is in respect of ALT1. Since the creator stated that ALT1 is cited in Sugarman p.190, I have taken the liberty of adding that citation to the header, to support the hook within the article. I take all the offline citations AGF. I should add that although I take the (abovewritten) point that Instrell 2008 citation is an online monograph with no evidence of peer review, it is nevertheless an impressive piece of research, and it is only in the article to provide an accessible online version of the offline citations anyway. Frankly, I can see nothing wrong with the article. I have re-checked all DYK requirements, and can find no problems. This is a beautifully clear and well-written article - a joy to read - especially for me as my father flew Lancasters and Halifaxes as a bomber pilot 1942-1944, though he did not speak German and never mentioned the sound-jamming system. Nevertheless I know that by that time many of the pilots were teenagers including my father in 1942, and many or most of his fellow-pilots were killed or wounded. Storye book (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)