Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GL Mk. I radar/archive1

GL Mk. I radar

Featured article candidates/GL Mk. I radar/archive1

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British radar system that aided the Army's anti-aircraft gunners. I think it's interesting because it was so low-tech that it helped convince the Germans that British radars were not very good (along with the similar MRU, an article I'll get to) and the amusing bit about it causing a nationwide shortage of chicken wire.

The article went through A-class some time ago, and it looks like I'll have some time to work it over the holidays, so here goes... Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

Don't use fixed px size

Why are there two of File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg?

File:GL_Mk._II_radar_transmitter.jpg: source link is dead

File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Queries: (1) what should I use instead of fixed px sizes? (2) should I use an archive URL for the dead link, or find another page with the same image? (3) There are two copies of the one image simply because we needed one to be in the lede for the DYK - I'm trolling the web looking for one to replace it at the bottom. (4) Canadian pic, what do I need in this case, a second tag for the US as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) |upright=. (2) Either, as long as the latter would verify the information provided on the description page. (3) If no other image can be found, the duplicate should be removed, DYK or no. (4) Commons requires images to be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the dead source link has changed? Where and when was File:GL_Mk_IIIc_radar_Accurate_Position_Finder.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems to have saved the new URL this time, not sure what I did. The second was first published in 1942/3. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NRC lab reports, Ottawa. They would have been available in the UK and US at the same time, and likely other Commonwhelth nations but I can't confirm that. The original image is now in the archives in Waterloo. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify, which part of that cannot be confirmed, and what do you mean by "available"? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

"Plans to introduce the Mk. II with accurate bearing and elevation were underway from the start" From the start of what?
"1,679 Mk. IIs were ultimately produced." Can we avoid starting this sentence with numerals?
"The GL effort was started very early during CH development, and like CH of that era, used relatively long wavelengths as these could be generated and detected easily using existing electronics from commercial shortwave radio systems". The lay reader might wonder how long wavelengths can be obtained with shortwave radios.
"The antenna was only marginally directional, with the signal being sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." There is a fused participle here. How about "and the signal was sent out in a wide fan about 60 degrees on either side." Or just drop the "with"?
"A more serious limitation was the displays themselves" I think "themselves" is redundant.
"As Mk. I arrived in the field, a number of improvements in the basic electronics were introduced." Perhaps "several improvements"?
"To better study the AA problem" Are you happy with the split infinitive?
"The separate range and bearing receiver units could operate on a number of frequency bands" Several ?
"A common oscillator was used by both receivers, which was sent into the four-tube radio frequency (RF) section" Perhaps provide a link to Electronic oscillator?

That's it from me for now. Graham Beards (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a bit; revert anything you disagree with.

"which provided both mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service in case a main CH station was knocked out". You don't need both "both" and "as well as"; either "both mobile early-warning service and relocatable service" or "mobile early-warning service, as well as relocatable service" would work. But it took me a second to understand the point of "relocatable". How about "which provided mobile early-warning service, and could also be relocated to replace a main CH station if one was knocked out"?
I don't think any change is needed, but I'm curious as to how accuracy was measured. If the radar was accurate to 25 yds for an aircraft several miles away, how was this determined? Even at slow speeds an aircraft would cover that distance in less than a second, so any form of human-triggered measurement seems unlikely to be precise enough. Could tests be done against objects on the ground?
"and produce a null on the display": what is a null? I understand the concept, but does this just mean that the display would be blank? And I see the word is used later in the article; it appears the display is not blank so I am unclear what is meant.
I see there's an article on GL Mk. III radar, but not on GL Mk. II radar. If the Mk. II is covered in this article, shouldn't the title reflect that?
"by sliding a copper ring along post on the core": presumably this should read "along a post"?
I don't think we need the wikilink to ladder, unless you intended that to go to some technical article with a similar name.
"Images exist that show both antennas combined on a single cabin": why is this worth mentioning? Surely images exist of many of these devices and their installations.
For note c I think you need a source for the suggested explanations. Without one I think it would be best to cut the note.

I don't know enough about electronics to provide any subject matter feedback on the description section, and I struggled to understand some of it, but that's the nature of technical articles. I think the article does what it can reasonably do towards explaining the material as simply as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]