Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/GL Mk. I radar

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, 26 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

GL Mk. I radar

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

The GL series are not well known but are important stepping stones in the development of radar. That this particular model also caused the entire UK to run out of chicken wire is also somewhat amusing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, this appears to have not been listed here correctly, have done so now. Coords should take this late listing into account when looking at older noms. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No DABs, external links OK
No conversion for 50 metre wavelength

These are not measurements, they are always in meters.

Use a hyphen for compound adjectives like 3-inch CRT. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template to have it handled automatically. I've done one for you already.
wavelengths between 3.4 and 5.5 m Needs a conversion
Redundant conversion of 14,000 yds. Convert on first use only.

Fixed.

display, who's operator fix this

Fixed.

Link dipole, wavelength

Fixed.

Down to Mk. II arrives, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Very nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, supporting on prose--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source link to GL Mk. II radar transmitter.jpg is broken, or, more exactly, leads to a blank page in my browser. And why is it used twice in the article?

I wanted an image at the top, and one in the description for people to refer to. I'd love to have different ones but finding images of this kit is surprisingly difficult.

Fair enough, but I'm more concerned about the sourcing as it's quite plausibly a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit. I certainly couldn't find it on the Imperial War Museum website. Pinging Nikkimaria for a second opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'd need a source to confirm that licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing holding this from being promoted is this image with dubious sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that "a photo snapped by one of the guys in the unit" was, by definition, ultimately part of the Crown Copyright. This photo was taken during WWII and was published at least as early as 1953 as it is appears to be scan of the same image found in the book "Army Radar" (the original, not the more recent one). That appears to meet both of the either/or requirements to be PD under UK law. So can someone be very specific what the issue is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a picture taken by a service member for himself doesn't fall under Crown Copyright, AFAIK. But all that's irrelevant if the picture appeared in Army Radar which was published by the Crown. You need to update the summary and sourcing saying as much. And give the page number on which it appeared in the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good here. The UK National Archives states that any Crown image enters PD 50 years after creation. This image was taken circa 1942 and thus fell into that category long ago. The MoD states that images taken by service members are Crown, as I had been led to believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get what they mean by "staff" clarified at some point, but it's irrelevant to this image. Update the sourcing and we'll be done here. By which, I mean the publishing info, not the link of the scanned image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz just this tweak to the image page needed and this will be good to promote. Can you add the issue and year of Army Radar and page that it was published on to the image description page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot add this information; the copy of the book I read is 350 miles from me in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. Should I withdraw the nom? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then just cite it to the proper edition of Army Radar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other images properly licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

fn 4,5: Is the ARRL Antenna Book a book? If so, could publication information be added (and the external links removed)?

Fixed

fn 16: Add journal name

Fixed

fn 17: Add ISBN

Added something actually useful instead.

fn 19, 23: Add access date

All sources are of high quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

"center" should be "centre", "defense" should be "defence"

Fixed

"The first GL set was a elementary design" an elementary design

Fixed

"This was sent to a second display, who's operator attempted to keep the antennas pointed at the target." whose operator

Fixed

Link Nevill Francis Mott

Fixed

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, I see this has been open for quite sometime, with a few reviews, but no responses, so I am uncertain if further reviews are desired. Nevertheless, I took a quick look. Overall, it looks pretty good to me, and should be able to be promoted if the above comments are dealt with. The main issue I see is that there are a few uncited sentences/paragraphs: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larger CRTs would improve the accuracy, but in this case a 12-inch (0.30 m) CRT would be required, beyond the state of the art for the mid-1930s.
1,679 GL Mark II sets were produced between June 1940 and August 1943. Additionally, I seem to recall somewhere in the MOS it says we shouldn't start sentences with numerals
the entire paragraph ending: In the immediate post-war era, these were in turn replaced by the smaller and lighter AA No. 3 Mk. 7 radar, which remained in use until AA guns were removed from service in the late 1950s.
- @Maury Markowitz: G'day, Maury, just checking in about these points about citations above, as they do not appear to have been covered off on, unless I've missed something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Just notifying you that Maury has now done these. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added my support now as the main issues have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have a couple of other minor comments/suggestions, which are largely peripherial and not necessarily impediments to successful promotion: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is there a page number or page range that could be added for the Butement citation?
is there an ISSN for the Lorber article?
the Lorber source is missing the name of the journal that it appears in (i.e Royal Canadian Air Force Journal)

No ISSN, not that I would bother, but the journal has been added.

"1927-7601" per [1]. I will leave it up to you to decide if you want to add it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is some inconsistency in the citation formats, for instance the refs to the Butement (citation # 1), ARRL Antenna Book (citation # 4), Galati (citation # 17) & Assad (citation # 31) use a format that is differnt to the majority of other citations (e.g. Austin (#32), Burns (# 33) for instance)

This is deliberate. Citations used only once or in close prox I put inline.

Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is there an OCLC number for the Sayer work?

They didn't exist in the 1950s AFAIK.

Added it for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Army Radar - historical monograph --> "Army Radar – Historical Monograph" (title case capitalisation)?

Sorry for the tardy replies everything above should be done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:45, 2 November 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.