Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton tube


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by  Rcsprinter123    (warn)  @ 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sutton tube

 * ... that the purpose of the unpowered vacuum tube (pictured) in the Rotterdam Gerät baffled German radar engineers?

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 20:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Date, size, all fine. The article has three unreferenced paragraphs - please fix (marked in the article). Also, please clarify in the article what Rotterdam Gerät is. I read the article, and the one about H2S radar, and I think the term means a copy of the radar captured by the Germans - but if som this should be clarified in both articles, and possibly in the hook. If I am right, the following hook may be better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that the purpose of the unpowered vacuum tube (pictured) in the captured H2S Rotterdam Gerät radar baffled German radar engineers during WWII?
 * ALT2 ... that the purpose of the unpowered vacuum tube (pictured) in the captured H2S Rotterdam Gerät baffled German radar engineers during WWII?
 * Simply removing the redundant "radar". Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is "captured" part of the link? The link is to "H2S radar", not to an article or section involving a capture. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  20:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain what the Rotterdam Gerät is, as the article(s) I read don't seem to do it clearly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps that single unit is famous enough to deserve it's own article? It certainly meets any definition of NOTE/GNG, but would the reader be better served by a section in the main H2S or a separate article entirely? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's notable and we can write 250+ words on it, I'd say make it a new article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: It seems that the creator doesn't understand, or does not want to understand, my request: please see User_talk:Maury_Markowitz and User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_48. Perhaps another reviewer can help him out? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviewed Gura, Eritrea


 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been two months since the three places needing citations were marked, and nothing has been done in the interim. That's more than enough time. Given Maury's typical resistance to supplying citations when requested, I don't see any point in bringing in another reviewer to try to sort out the other issues, and the article certainly cannot be given a main page presence with three "citation needed" templates. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)