Talk:Frequency agility

A fact from Frequency agility appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that modern radars use frequency agility to reduce the effects of intentional interference, or jamming?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/June.

Wikipedia

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Untitled[edit]

-- Most of the links on this page are broken, and there are not suitable replacements. I don't know who to poke in Wikipedia land about this, and the FAQ wasn't helpful in figuring out what sort of warning/notice to put on the page saying this information may be inaccurate and needs more citations. Which you'd think I could have found easily since it's a wikipedia cliche... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.124.210.129 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]