Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enigma machine

Enigma machine
Excellent article. I learned a lot about the Enigma machines from it, and I was extremely surprised it hasn't achieved featured status yet. Detailed, but not so detailed that you're ultimately bored &mdash; and quite interesting too. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. With qualms. This article is currently under review by several regular contributors to the crypto corner. jwr made an invited non-specialist review of it (see Talk) and his comments will be implemented, Real Soon Now. I agree that it is (almost) a feature quality article, and expect that it will be still more so quite shortly. Say in the next week or so. ww 14:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is really interesting.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:01, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's a very good article, but I have a couple of very minor objections: 1, the writing style occasionally becomes a bit too chatty and informal in parts, and 2, there are an awful lot of brackets. I tend to use brackets a lot as well, but I found it rather distracting when reading this article.  With those things cleaned up a little I'd support.  Exploding Boy 16:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried my best to remove some brackets here and there. I'll see what I can do about the writing style tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent, detailed article. - Taxman 16:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've noticed some problems in clarity and coverage:


 * One thing that stuck out is the second paragraph in Breaking the Enigma. It notes "...decryption of their messages was impossible in practice..." and "[British]...and French cryptanalysts gave up...".  Later information seems to say that that was temporary in some cases.  That section could use some improvements for clarity and correctness.


 * Also, the section Breaking the Enigma after discussing the initial Polish efforts, focuses almost entirely on the British efforts. Is that the fact that the British were the most successful at breaking the Enigma? The French role is especially lacking, did they accomplish anything?  The American role is mentioned in only a few sentances in that section.  More could be covered on the Allied and US "industrialization" of the bombs.  The intro paragraphs seem to say that the breaking of the Enigma was more balanced than the Breaking the Enigma section does.  If that is not the case, either or both could be fixed. Thanks - Taxman 15:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * See the recent discussion at Talk for the French contribution. The article is about 39K at the moment and it's unclear how much more detail should be shoehorned in. The comments should answer your question in re the French. As for industrialitzation, there was a serious tug of war over who would have access (and the UK side probably saw control there as well) to Engima decrypt work, including bombe design/construction. USA and USN finally decided to have at some (advanced, high speed) bombe designs and that, according to some accounts, was the straw that broke the foot dragging back. Cooperation on bombe work and Engima decrypts was much less a bone of contention thereafter. Again, should this be in an already (too?) long article? ww 19:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I see that discussion. I'm not asking for more material, just more clarity on who contributed what when.  The summary of events on the talk pages shows that it doesn't take much volume of material to be more clear than the article is now about the above points I outlined.


 * If you're more worried about length, then maybe the article should be separated into one on the machine itself (which the article title is anyway) and one on the process of breaking the cipher. You guys seem to have a lot more material to go in, so it would be a shame to not do that just because this article should really only be about the machine anyway. - Taxman 20:53, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. There's a number of threads to the Enigma topic, and it is proving difficult to fit them all in: 1) A description of the workings and components of the machine; 2) A history of how the machine was developed and evolved, and who used it; 3) The techniques for codebreaking; 4) The history, people and results of the codebreaking (Ultra); 5) How the Enigma story was revealed 30 years (or more) later. As you suggest, perhaps we should stick primarily to 1) and 2) within Enigma machine, and evolve off the other parts into separate articles (I think User:ww also suggested splitting of the cryptanalysis details); of course, we should leave a paragraph or two for each of 3), 4) and 5) to summarise. Actually, maybe this comment should be on the Talk: page... &mdash; Matt 21:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well this will make it to the talk page anyway. I would have to agree this article should focus on 1) and 2) as you have noted, and the rest should be only summarized in this article.  There's so much more material about the machine and examples of how it works, that seems more appropriate to go in than the other bits staying there in full detail. - Taxman 12:12, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. An interesting story.  Smerdis of Tlön 00:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Weakly object for the moment. This is already a good article, but I have some relatively minor areas for improvement: (1) some of the sentences are missing segues showing how the thoughts connect (I'll try to do some copyediting in the coming days), (2) the organization of the article as a whole is adequate but sometimes unclear, and moreover technical cryptanalysis gets mixed in with military history (I think the main issue is to add a paragraph at the beginnings of sections saying what's in the section), (3) some terms and concepts aren't introduced for those who are unfamiliar, e.g. the German term for the Navy, (4) I got lost in the Operation section; since Enigma is inherently complicated, this is not a fatal flaw, but a diagram would be nice, and it would be nice to have some kind of simplified view that gives the basic idea for less mathematically inclined readers who are interested in the history and high level cryptography but not the details, (5) Most of the "Disclosure" section is somewhat POV, e.g. WRT the Luftwaffe bombing of Coventry, it says that Calvocoresssi is better than Winterbotham, but not why; needs more sources or evidence.  The article is good, but ideally could be improved before being featured.  Zashaw 03:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my objection. I should say I haven't read the technical sections that closely, so I'm not contradiction Exploding Boy's concerns below, but I think the article's in decent shape.  Minorly, the Disclosure section still sounds somewhat POV; I'm not sure how controversial this is, though.  Also, there's never any mention to figure #2, although it seems to relate to the text.  Anyway, I'm happy with this article being featured.  Zashaw 20:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I've tried to copyedit the article as best as I can; now it's obvious #4 has a diagram; #5 has been fixed. The rest...it's debatable, but hopefully it meets your standards. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's looking ok. There are still one or two things I'd like to change (some of the numbers still need to be written out rather than given as digits, for example).  I'll give it a quick check in a little while.  Otherwise, support . Exploding Boy 15:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have just spent I don't know how long trying to fix the writing in this article. I got about halfway through before getting sick of it.  There are a lot of problems with style and clarity.  I withdraw my support for now.  Exploding Boy 16:35, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Matt Crypto has made several edits since your edit &mdash; it seems clearer to me, now, though I'm not sure whether this is more due to your work or his. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry. There are still problems with writing and even, in a few places, with grammar.  The article is interesting, but in many places the writing really gets iffy, especially in places where there are technical descriptions. Exploding Boy 11:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. This is an OK article, but 1) Yes, the article is pretty unclear in the technical descriptions, and the Enigma isn't the easiest machine to grasp; I think much of the description needs some heavy reworking, and the liberal use of diagrams is traditional in expositions of the Enigma &mdash; we need more. (User:Wapcaplet has kindly agreed to make some 3D models of the rotors). 2) The article fails to even mention several important details, and sometimes glosses over points to the point of inaccuracy (e.g., "Procedures for communicating using Enigma" describes only one of several indicating procedures used for Enigma &mdash; for most of WWII, it was different); I've listed some stuff on the ToDo list at Talk:Enigma, and I plan to work on it tonight, but, in truth, I think it's unlikely this article can be fixed up to FA standard before it falls off the bottom of this page. &mdash; Matt 01:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I like it. I am sure it will make the front page soon, but it needs some editing work - for example,  I think that Marian Rejewski should be mentioned earlier. Also, the reference to him in Breaking the Enigma chapter is unclear. All the information is there, and after it is slightly rewritten (see above entries), treat my vote as a support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)