Talk:Ship camouflage/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Pick a citation style and standarize the footnotes
Formatted refs as Surname, Forename (Date). Sources used repeatedly are listed in full in 'Sources' and referenced with Surname Date, Pages.
Still not real thrilled with a mix of short and full citations - it would be best to use only one or the other. I recommend using the {{sfn}} templates.
I've sfn-ed all the short form refs; this is already beyond the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WP:CITEVAR is broader than simply GA criteria - it's a general expectation. And WP:FNNR, which is in the GA criteria, specifically references CITEVAR. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine labyrinth of rules, but I went the extra mile anyway. I think you'll see that everything is now reffed and navigable either to a web page or where appropriate to a book in the list of (reused) sources, which looks exceptionally tidy to me! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is indeed a byzantine place, but I think you're missing the point. This, for example, should be converted to a short cite, to match the rest. There are also harv errors in the templates that now need to be sorted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the harvs. My point on Sumner is that it's only used once so I can't see the point of making people navigate from it, nothing is being gained by the extra jump. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a couple of harv errors in the Sources section - if there are no citations pointing to a ref, just remove the |ref=harv line from the template.
I have (I believe) done that now.
There are a couple more that popped in when you converted the refs, but I'm going to pass this now on the assumption that you'll handle those. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could call this a case of form over function - even in the case of a reference being used once, it's standard practice to use a short cite if the rest of the citations are short cites (see for instance one of my recent GAs and these others from other editors). Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. OK, I've formatted all the books as sfns. Hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does the Eastman citation (the first para of the Early Modern section) actually cover the first couple of lines? Based on the title, I'm guessing that it actually only covers the bit on Haraden~~
It's all from Eastman.

~~I'd recommend going through old periodicals like this one that have articles on naval camouflage - they can be quite useful.~~
Openly published unofficial wartime (that one's 1918) magazine pieces essentially can't contain any real secrets; they can be pure opinion, guesses, or based on old ideas from people like Thayer who were trying to persuade the US Navy / Admiralty, or propaganda.
There's no reason for any of it to have been classified - in any event, there are also USN and RN publications available.
Not going to hold up the review on this point, but it's something I'd want to see considered for A-class/FA
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article seems to be mostly weighted to US and UK practices - it would be helpful to expand the other sections, particularly with non-European navies - for instance, see this photo of a Japanese aircraft carrier with its deck painted so it appears to be a battleship (and see for instance here for more on Japanese camouflage practices. You might also discuss German practices in greater depth - for example, Bismarck originally wore the Baltic scheme (complete with large swastikas on the deck for aerial recognition), which was painted over prior to her Atlantic sortie.
Added the improvised night cam for Japanese battleships from Stille 2012. Not much that is reliable seems to have been written on the other navies, and I haven't found any indication of different principles in these cases. Drawing any sort of written conclusions from images is likely to be treated as WP:OR, which is a pity as images are (as you've found) the main record of camouflage in most navies. We have therefore to be very cautious. The reason for more coverage of US and UK practices is not simply that more is written, and in English (I read French, German, and Italian, by the way), but that these large and active navies were highly innovative.
The bit on late-war camouflage to hide the ships from bombers should be added as well.
Done.

As for the rest, no, I wasn't suggesting you make additions solely based on pictures - the images were simply to point you in the right direction. All of these examples (and probably more) have been covered in reliable sources - see for instance von-Müllenheim-Rechberg's history of Bismarck, which references both the Baltic scheme and the gray scheme adopted for the Atlantic sortie. Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 has information on German paint schemes from the 1860s through WWII (which, for instance, can be used to cite when they switched from Victorian paint schemes to "modern" gray ones as per the comment below).
OK. I've added a fair amount on German WWI and WWII ships. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you added on the German WWI ships reminded me of the auxiliary commerce raiders, which were generally disguised as neutral ships - this should cover the WWI ships and this should cover the WWII ships.

Done.

Do you have those two refs to hand, with brief quotes for me to paraphrase? It would save a lot of time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though it'll have to wait until tonight. There are probably other references for the Bismarck example though.
I've described other ships in some detail from other sources, and Bismarck from Asmussen.
This is probably fine now for GA, but I'd like to see these sections expanded for A-class/FA

In a similar vein, the shift to gray schemes took place in all navies in the early 1900s, not just the RN - you could also make a point about the USN dropping the "white and buff" of the Great White Fleet in favor of gray schemes.
Article already mentions this for other navies; USN and Great White Fleet added, thankyou.

Generally speaking, the Early Modern period goes from 1500 to 1800 - you might just merge the first two sections together, since the meat of the topic (i.e., systematized camouflage use on a large scale) is during the world wars.
Yes, ok. Grouped them in a 'Precursors' section, effectively the prehistory of the topic.

The British and Americans experimented with fitting baffles to masts and yards during WWI to confuse enemy rangefinders - this should be mentioned. These are referenced in Burt's British Battleships of World War I (see for instance HMS Emperor of India), and I seem to think Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History mentions them for the American ships.
Done.
Nevermind on Friedman - he was talking about different kinds of baffles.

It would probably be worthwhile to cover camouflage use in coastal/riverine forces, since it would differ significantly from high-seas forces
Done.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The article is fairly image heavy, which is understandable, but it might be wise to move many of the images to galleries at the bottom of each section.
Done.

File:HMS London (1899) as minelayer May 1918.jpg - needs a source
The image is stated as unattributed, probably Royal Navy: in fact it must have been taken by the Royal Navy, given that it is at sea in wartime, so the PD license is correct.
Yes, but we still need a source.
Ok, removed; found HMT Aquitania, suitably sourced, as an alternative.
Looks fine to me.

File:Nymphe Norwegian harbour.jpg - license for this is problematic, as it is obviously not the work of a member of USN
It may well be fine as German military photos of WWII are also PD, but I've hidden it anyway.
No, most German photos from WWII are still copyrighted in Germany.
It's gone anyhow. The BundesArchiv has given a pile of Images to Commons, but I can't see a suitable ship just now.
There's these two of Tirpitz.

Added one of them.

File:MAScamo.jpg - needs a source
None is available beyond what is stated. It appears to be valid for Commons.
It needs a source - just because it's hosted on Commons does not mean it's fine, copyright-wise.
Ok, removed.

There are a few interesting images you might like to include in a gallery for the WWI section - see for instance File:USS Nebraska experimental camouflage.tiff, File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg (this one's a Featured Picture, btw), File:HMS Argus (1917).jpg - I'd probably move the image of USS Shawmut down to the gallery, as it seems odd to illustrate the section on the RN with a USN warship.
Just a reminder on this last point - not a requirement of course, just some other options to consider. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're pretty much there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks for the thorough review. It's interesting for a natural history editor to see how the other sort of history works. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]