Talk:Type 965 radar

Military history: Maritime / Technology / British / European / South America / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	South American military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Section headings should be relevant to the contents of their sections

I have no objections to there being sections on development and operational history.

However, a section on development ought to contain information on development - and I have not found sources that would support this. Information about the procurement decision, and the choices available is very different from information on development.

Similarly I would expect a section on operational history to contain information on the radar's roughly 50 years of front-line service in different navies. I would not expect it to just contain a few facts on its operational capabilities.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, BUT the lead is no lead section is much too long in my opinion. Also "Why the Type 965 was procured" is no adequate heading in my opinion. Do you have any better suggestions instead of just reversing? Cobatfor (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain what your objection is to Why the Type 965 was procured as a section heading. Please do this in terms of Wikipedia policies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography used, please?

Hi Toddy1, thanks for putting together this article so shortly after it was requested. Can you please add the list of bibliographic sources used, with complete details? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the list of bibliographic sources used. I did look at more issues of Jane's Fighting Ships than mentioned - they mostly say the same thing, year after year.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]