Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Camouflage/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Camouflage

 * Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article now represents a helpful overview of a large topic of wide interest. The 'Camouflage' navbox shows that this article sits in a tree of articles, of which Military camouflage and Operation Bertram are also good articles, and others such as Countershading and Ship camouflage are now covered in detail. The function of the 'Camouflage' article itself is thus to provide a concise summary and overview of the whole topic. For this reason it covers a wide range of mechanisms, many with subsidiary articles, and both animal and military camouflage. Where mechanisms may be hard to grasp, they are explained graphically in specially drawn diagrams, such as for 'Eliminating shadow', 'Motion camouflage', and 'Counterillumination'. Since the article is referenced for general interest, it summarizes the historical development of camouflage. It does this both by calling out articles on pioneering books such as those of Abbott Thayer and Hugh Cott, and by summarizing the history of military camouflage. Finally, it provides a wide but carefully chosen set of images, nearly all from Commons, illustrating each aspect of this especially visual topic. It has been found necessary to group the images in galleries to keep them conveniently close to the sections that they illustrate. The bibliography is grouped for easy access by readers with different interests. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Grandiose
 * I don't understand the need for the rather unusual approach taken to images in the article, particularly in the "History" section (since I can't see a reason to depart from regular principles there). Why so many images? We don't have to have pictures of all these people, and it breaks up the flow in my opinion.

--- all people images removed; other images have been culled.

The topic is about hiding from view, often in plain sight, so it is necessarily and essentially visual. Accordingly each aspect and mechanism of camouflage is illustrated to show what is done and why. I don't have any special attachment to galleries, so if anyone knows a better way to present the images I'm happy to go with it.
 * In the History section, your point has more force, I agree. I felt it would be helpful to readers actually to see who did what, to put a face and name to each topic, such as Thayer and countershading. We could remove the people, but that would take away from the history the people who made it happen. Of course that could become a subsidiary article, 'History of camouflage' if you prefer. I've removed the portraits from History.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just picked one image out to explain: File:Andre Mare Camouflaged Iron Observation Tree (The Elm at Vermezeele) 1916.jpg. Which is the country of origin? Is the (underlying) work in the public domain in the country of origin? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This image has a non-free usage rationale. Mare was French. If the image, or rather the notebook of which it forms part, counts as having been published then its pre-1923 date means it is public domain and it can be moved to Commons. Since it was unclear to me I treated it as non-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have made a mistake in your understanding somewhere. The file does not have a fair use rationale. It merely is somewhat unclear. It can stay on en.wiki if it is correctly licensed for the US, which it is. It should not be moved to Commons without a French rationale and, for FA purposes, this should be clearly indicated so the reader of the file description is not in doubt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, the description has been updated recently, by bot and human, so my NFUR is now only in the history. I have put a comment on the image description page as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question how many non-free images are used in the article?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 9 right now. If we remove 3 portraits, 6 5. 2 1 could go to Commons ( Yehudi lights by US military; Dazzle Ball, 1919), leaving 4 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009:
 * I'd oppose on the basis of the sheer number of images; in one case, as many as six images for a single paragraph section. The result detracts from the underlying article, which I generally enjoyed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have reduced the no. of images per row, max 5. Have culled images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It still looks very busy indeed on my screen, but that may just be the size of the monitor etc. I'm withdrawing my opposition, but I can't move to a support position because of that. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment — There are too many images. This one in particular is purely decorative. File:Aline Campos 1c.jpg. I cannot see this candidate succeeding without a radical cull. A few carefully chosen images should be enough to illustrate the facts. Graham Colm (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the guidance. Images culled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments ---Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) --- done, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can the publication dates of books be placed after the books' names in parentheses? For example "the 1909 book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom" → "the book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom (1909)" --- done
 * "He showed by experiment that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds they were reared on as larvae (caterpillars)." → "He showed, by experiment, that swallowtailed moth pupae (chrysalises) were camouflaged to match the backgrounds on which they were reared as larvae (caterpillars)." --- done
 * "British army" → "British Army" --- done
 * "calves die before their first birthday." → "calves die within a year." --- done
 * "influenced Fashion from the time of the first world war onwards." → "influenced fashion for the time from the First World War onwards."
 * "In 1919, Chelsea Arts Club held a "Dazzle Ball". Those attending wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." Why is "Dazzle Ball" in caps? I suggest "In 1919, the attendants of a "dazzle ball", hosted by the Chelsea Arts Club, wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing." --- done
 * "Illustrated London News" Italicise. --- done
 * "1885-1932" and "first world war" MOS. --- done
 * "His 1973 screenprint of a leafily-camouflaged tank, Arcadia, 1973" Repetition of 1973. --- done
 * "In the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, military clothing was often worn by anti-war protestors as a symbol of political protest" → "During the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, anti-war protestors often wore military clothing during demonstrations against the American involvement in the Vietnam War." 1) Am I right in assuming that the protesters were against the Vietnam War, or were they demonstrating against wars in general? 2) I don't understand how camouflage clothing was used as a symbol of political protest, wouldn't it make sense to not wear camouflage, since they were anti-war? --- done. Clarified with "ironically".
 * "plastic branches (see illustration)" What illustration? --- done

Resolved comments Oppose. This article suffers from problems both at the organizational level and the prose level. The article has significantly improved since the start of the FAC. My resolved comments have been moved to the FAC talk page to reduce clutter. There may be issues that I have missed, so I encourage other reviewers to apply a critical eye to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done Give up and oppose - sorry, but the citations are just too messy for me to keep reviewing them at this point. Please make them consistent and include required information. Also, on a quick look I'm seeing WP:MOS errors in the article text, so that should be something else you look at for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "patterns such as "Berlin camouflage" are sometimes painted on vehicles intended for urban use" - source? --- removed
 * FN1: publisher, access date? --- done
 * FN2: page formatting --- done
 * Bibliography needs cleaning up. Don't mix cited and uncited sources. --- split off 'Further reading' section
 * FN6: publisher? Several sources seem to be missing this
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for books --- done
 * FN6: for direct quotes page numbers are essential --- done
 * FN7: page(s)?
 * FN8: formatting
 * FN9: page formatting --- done
 * FN10, 11: publisher?
 * FN12: italics, missing page number
 * Use a consistent page formatting --- done
 * Be consistent in what order information is presented in citations.
 * MOS issues so far detected have been done.
 * page refs formatted
 * bibliography restructured
 * other ref issues being addressed by reviewer.
 * Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: okay, I've fixed all issues with citations and MOS that I could find, and have also done some copy-editing of the prose and fixed a few images. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, it's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments.
 * "camouflet, a French term meaning blow smoke in someone's face.": It means "affront" these days, and I'm pretty sure it would have to be a noun no matter how far back you go (and thus couldn't mean "blow smoke"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

--- Indeed it's plainly a noun. Reworded as 'Smoke blown...' We did have 'as a practical joke' in there at one point, which goes with the 'affront'.
 * "Camouflage is a set of methods": Avoid non-falsifiable statements. (How would it not be a set?). I'd go with: any method.

--- reworded as 'the concealment ... by any method...'
 * That's all for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Concern I'm seeing some rather fundamental problems with organization and POV of the article. The current texts seems to be quite too heavily dominated by military camouflage. For example, far more than half of the illustrations are of soldiers and military equipment. And this is rather difficult to understand, since there is a perfectly fine stand-alone sub-article for military camouflage. This is most obvious by sections like "Dazzle painting" (obvious military application, but sorted independently), "Fashion, art and society" (inspiration by military) and "Non-military camouflage" (the dead giveaway). Peter Isotalo 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

--- Thank you. This is an artefact of this FAC, which has removed a large number of animal images; the article was predominantly zoological, balanced by a mil summary (after all, the term camouflage comes from World War I), with no POV to mil. Similarly the title 'non-military...' is of FAC vintage, have replaced it with 'Civil applications'. 'Dazzle' too covers both Zebra and Dazzle ship, not a mil section; retitling to 'Distraction'. Have replaced ship image with zebra, snow overalls with ptarmigan. On the organization question, please see discussion above, which is ongoing I believe this has now been satisfactorily addressed.

--- Other images and balance: please see "Reorganisation" above

--- Comments by DexDor on Camouflage's talk page. DexDor reports that for technical reasons and the length of this FAC he has had to comment on the Talk page instead. I have responded to his comments there.

Graham Colm (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.