Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/IFF Mark II

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) 09:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

IFF Mark II edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Featured article candidates/IFF Mark II/archive1

IFF was one of the many advances of the "Wizard War" in WWII. While the Mk I and II are best considered temporary stepping stones on the path to the "real" Mk. III, it's place in history is still secure as the first operational IFF system. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: After a quick read:

Citations generally shouldn’t be in the lead.
Any citations for this: “but only 50 of these were delivered.”
Seems a bit on the short end, but this is quite a narrow topic.

Other than that, good work.--Randomness74 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in the lede was for DYK, I've removed. Looking for the 50. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, Maury, ‌interesting article. I'm well out of my depth in relation to content, so I figured I'd try to help out by looking at some of the minor aspects. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

images seem correctly licenced to me
"used by all allied aircraft" --> "used by all Allied aircraft"?
there are a few overlinked terms: Battle of Britain, Chain Home, radar display, Ferranti, Royal Navy
in the Bibliography, are there ISBN or OCLC numbers fo the Brown, Howse and Shayler works? They can usually be found at www.worldcat.org
"Robert Watson-Watt": suggest maybe quickly explaining who he was when you mention him for the first time
- Suggest maybe "British inventor Robert Watson-Watt", or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"unfortunately": probably best to avoid this word per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
"they wouldn't have the right": probably best to avoid contractions
"1000" --> "1,000"?

Got all of these too! I'll never understand the desire for ISBN in the era of URLs though... Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those tweaks, Maury, I have had another look through. I wasn't quite sure of the structure before, but couldn't place my finger on the issue. I have spent a bit of time thinking about it, and have a suggestion now, which I will detail below. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

structure: I'd suggest maybe removing "History" as a 2nd level header, and replace it with "Previous efforts" as a 2nd level header, with "Early concepts" and "Mark I" as level three headers. I would then have "Design and development" as a second level header (replacing the "Mark II" level three header that is currently there), and then change the "Mark III" third level header to "Subsequent development" or something similar (maybe "Replacement by the Mark III"?) Anyway, I have made an edit on the article, to illustrate my point. I've self reverted, though, so you can choose to implement or not, or come up with something better. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my suggested change: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've wondered how World War II-era IFF systems worked, so it's good to see a high quality article on the topic. My only comment is that the article should explain what a "Geneva mechanism" is. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Interesting article. Is there a publisher for fn 2? And a citation is required for the last sentence in the Mark I section. Otherwise, my only suggestion is that squitter doesn't need italics; put it in quotes like "pip-squeak". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Interesting read. A few suggestions: /~hue sat lum/ 17:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It was all too easy" is repeated in successive paragraphs.
With Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III all being mentioned in the article, you should add non-breaking spaces before the Roman numerals for clarity where they could be split up into two lines.
"Watt's" → "Watson-Watt's"
"He filed initial patents on such systems in 1935 and 1936" This doesn't seem to be in the Bowden paper as cited.
Link "cam" (lede and body)?
Add a DOI to the Bowden citation
"Radar Development to 1945" is missing author(s)
Citation 2 (The British invention of radar) is a dead link. Is this a website or a transcribed book? The archived site has date and author information that should be added.

G'day Maury Markowitz just a reminder that there are a few outstanding comments here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my disappearing act everyone. I believe everything above has been addressed. I did not add nbsp's, and Watt didn't become Watson-Watt until after this period. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Hi AR, in light of Maury's comment above, are you happy to support this nomination so we can clear it from the reviewing list or is there something still outstanding? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I was hoping for a response to my suggestion, but it is just a suggestion so it shouldn't hold up promotion. That said, now I look at it again, I think there are a couple of things that need covering off on. For instance, this appears uncited: "but only 50 of these were delivered". There is also some inconsistency in the citation style that I missed earlier (apologies). For instance compare "Poole, Ian (1998). Basic Radio: Principles and Technology. Newnes. pp. 187–193" with "Brown 1999, p. 130.". The second of these isn't that important, but the first really should be dealt with before the review is closed, IMO. Otherwise, I think it is good to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz, it looks like we can almost clear this one up, just the outstanding comments immediately above to deal with. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just looking quickly at the sources, I notice the retrieval dates in the Bowden and Brown references are presented differently as well. The majority look reliable being textbooks or reputable publishers but what makes Greg Goebel a reliable source? Sorry for this last comment, in case you aren't aware MilHist has tightened up on sourcing following the recent GWE Armcom case (reported in the latest Bugle). Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in citation style is that when I have a source that is used only in a limited location, I put it inline. I do not know anything about the dates, that's something the wiki markup is doing. I have changed the cite on pip-squeek, but was that arbcom about Goebel? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the retrieval date format. The Arbcom case wasn't about Goebel but as a result of the case Milhist have added a source check to the A-Class reviewing requirements. Amateur websites, which was my impression of Goebel, may not have been a RS. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you still need a cite for the delivery of 50. I have added a cite needed tag. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, this looks close to promotion, but I believe this last point is outstanding? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images - both images used in the article are correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Source Review - All secondary sources reliable and of high quality, primary sources are appropriately used. Kges1901 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2018 (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.