- 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) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ... that Doppler DF uses the Doppler effect to measure the bearing of a radio transmitter, although neither the transmitter nor receiver have to be moving? Moell, p.21
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- Reviewed Avrodh the Siege Within
Article is quite jargon heavy. I think the hook is interesting, but wonder if it will be to someone less familiar with the jargon. I have concerns about the sourcing, as the first source I checked (Sadler 2010, p. 4.) doesn't support all of the text attributed to it. The article should be checked to ensure everything cited is actually in the sources. It could also use some diagrams to aid with the understanding, much like the Sadler source uses, although the DYK nom won't hinge on this. CMD (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suggesting this hook using the same fact as the original, but it better brings out why this is surprising, and hence more hooky. Also, there is no reason not to use the full article title rather than a jargony abbreviation. SpinningSpark 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I can, but there's been no edits to the article since this nomination. CMD (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maury Markowitz: Any updates? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, two weeks at the cottage and start of school. I'll get to this shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Alt1 works for me. I have no diagrams to add, and that should not hold up a DYK. All else appears fine? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maury Markowitz, "article is quite jargon heavy". Maybe you can discuss with Chipmunkdavis about this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vincent60030:I made a number of minor edits to gr, but to be honest, this is not particularily jargon heavy and most of the terms do have inline explainations. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chipmunkdavis: I've made some touchups, can you have another look? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought up sourcing, and specifically mentioned Sadler 2010, p. 4. This has been edited a bit, but Sadler is still used to source "The operator rotated the antenna looking for points where the signal either reached a maximum, or more commonly, suddenly disappeared or "nulled". A common RDF antenna design is the loop antenna, which is simply a loop of wire with a small gap in the circle, typically arranged to rotate around the vertical axis with the gap at the bottom." The text on p.4 is "Traditional approaches to DF – directional antenna, Simplest approach for DF is to mechanically rotate a directional antenna, A peak in the response indicates the approximate signal direction, Not easy to rotate directional HF antennas due to large size, Can use an electrically small loop, Not high accuracy, Problems with polarization – no good for skywaves, 180° ambiguity, Only needs a single receiver, Loop rotated so that the signal is nulled." The source relates to the text, but it does not seem to be the basis for the text. There's quite a bit in the text which isn't in the source. Most sources are offline so I can't check them, but Bauer shows similar issues, and is further reportedly accessed in January 2008, which feels unlikely. CMD (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The diagram on page 4 shows an antenna consisting of a loop of wire being rotated to sense the null. I added "arranged to rotate around the vertical axis" because it's not obvious from the diagram, although it is on the next page. But that's fine, there's a better diagram in Hunting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| 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
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Overall: 
Good to go with main or ALT1 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: edit conflict. I had just spent an hour writing the following, so I'm adding it anyway. Thanks, Hawkeye! Storye book (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| 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
|
|
|
Overall:
This review is in response to the new-reviewer request, with respect to
ALT1. First impressions: excellent. Another blinder from MM. Beautiful, clear language, and careful explanations. So let's see what we can do to get this one moving through DYK. I have checked all the DYK aspects of the article and ALT1, and I have found no problems. I take all the offline citations AGF. I have read carefully through all the comments.
Regarding jargon, there are some subjects which require precision, and for precision they need technical terms. These days, "jargon" just means proper technical terms that the uninitiated or the uneducated have not yet learned to understand. It can also mean the sort of junk language that insurance salesmen and mediocre businessmen might use to fool you (and themselves) that they know what they're talking about. And we don't mean that sort here, do we. So the only problem with the technical language is that we don't all understand it without making the effort of looking it up. Maybe there is a moral in this. But the fact remains that we have here the language of physics, and you can't put it into words suitable for Granny and the kids. Or, you could, but you'd have to replace each technical term with half a bookful of explanations complete with diagrams and calculations and proofs. So let's stick with the tech terms and pretend we get it.
Regarding sourcing. MM has explained that the source does indeed fully support the hook, and I believe that we can take that AGF.
Assessment. I have carefully reassessed the article and hook ALT1 for DYK because time has passed and some editing has happened. I see no problems.
Minor niggles that don't affect DYK (in case I've been too nice so far). You have the word "short" twice in the first few lines, which is mildly irritating. Think of another word? Widely-used is adjectival, and so is direction-finding so they should be hyphenated, with a comma between each phrase. So as far as I can see, there are no more hold-ups and this is good to go.
Storye book (
talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Storye book (
talk)
20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A new reviewer is needed as CMD hasn't edited since September 26th and did not respond to pings. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Good to go with main or ALT1 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This review is in response to the new-reviewer request, with respect to ALT1. First impressions: excellent. Another blinder from MM. Beautiful, clear language, and careful explanations. So let's see what we can do to get this one moving through DYK. I have checked all the DYK aspects of the article and ALT1, and I have found no problems. I take all the offline citations AGF. I have read carefully through all the comments. Regarding jargon, there are some subjects which require precision, and for precision they need technical terms. These days, "jargon" just means proper technical terms that the uninitiated or the uneducated have not yet learned to understand. It can also mean the sort of junk language that insurance salesmen and mediocre businessmen might use to fool you (and themselves) that they know what they're talking about. And we don't mean that sort here, do we. So the only problem with the technical language is that we don't all understand it without making the effort of looking it up. Maybe there is a moral in this. But the fact remains that we have here the language of physics, and you can't put it into words suitable for Granny and the kids. Or, you could, but you'd have to replace each technical term with half a bookful of explanations complete with diagrams and calculations and proofs. So let's stick with the tech terms and pretend we get it. Regarding sourcing. MM has explained that the source does indeed fully support the hook, and I believe that we can take that AGF. Assessment. I have carefully reassessed the article and hook ALT1 for DYK because time has passed and some editing has happened. I see no problems. Minor niggles that don't affect DYK (in case I've been too nice so far). You have the word "short" twice in the first few lines, which is mildly irritating. Think of another word? Widely-used is adjectival, and so is direction-finding so they should be hyphenated, with a comma between each phrase. So as far as I can see, there are no more hold-ups and this is good to go. Storye book (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)