Wikipedia:Peer review/Amateur Radio Direction Finding/archive1

Amateur Radio Direction Finding
I know this is an obscure sport in most of the English-speaking world, but it has lately seen some growing popularity in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. I would appreciate any feedback on the article, especially from individuals for whom the entire subject is completely new. --Kharker 23:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a good article and appears to be a fairly thorough treatment of the subject. About the only thing missing would be some information on the actual winners of the world championships. Their names, finish times, nations of origin, and so forth. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 16:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that this would be too cumbersome. In each world championships, there are nine age/gender entry categories for two meters and nine age/gender categories for eighty meters, which is 18 winners per year for 13 world championships, not to mention the team rankings, which is all a bit much.  I also think this is a level of detail that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedic article; none of the other wikipedia articles about sports (i.e. basketball, lacrosse, rugby union, etc.) go into that level of detail.  This might be more appropriate for a list article to accompany this one.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent article. I've never heard of this sport before. Several comments:
 * What's the deal with the 2 meters and 80 meters? what the difference, why those? it seems important...
 * I've added several additional sentences to that paragraph that I hope answer these questions adequately. I'm also adding a reference to one of the articles that discusses it in more depth.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "The first events of this nature were held in England and Denmark..." what events? contests, conferences, etc. the reference doesn't explain it either.
 * I've clarified this sentence. Although the source infers that competitions were being held in England and Denmark then (and they were), it is most specifically referring to the creation of formal rules.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Russia ARDF Team web site is not a very useful as a reference. I'm not sure of the policy for foreign language references but the point of these inline citations is for easy verification of facts (and further reading on the point). Same with German in Note 18.
 * I've been unable to find an English-language reference for this, so I've just removed it.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In note 11, a link to the actual rules might be more useful, especially for Note 11b.
 * Fixed. I will get to the rest of these comments in time as well.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Local variations" sub-section seems like an odd little section. Perhaps expand it more or else merge it with "Rules" section
 * I've expanded it slightly.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Map and course details" section could use an illustrative image.
 * Agreed. This is a challenge, however, as essentially all ARDF/orienteering maps are owned by clubs that have paid a significant amount (tens of thousands of dollars in many cases) to have them made.  The orienteering article faces the same challenge.  I will ask around and see if anyone has an older map or portion of a map they are willing to release under a suitable license.--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)--Kharker 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "It immediately became popular in..." what would lead me to believe this? is there a reference that could illustrate this claim?
 * I've changed the phrasing.--Kharker 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "As of 2005, there has been no organized ARDF activity..." as far as you know, sounds like a bold statement (open to intpretation) so should probably get a reference. Otherwise re-phrase to 'there are no registered societies' or 'no teams from x, y, z that compete in the championships'...just something more concrete.
 * Yes, it is harder to prove absence than existence. I've just removed that sentence - I don't think its elimination will detract from the rest of the paragraph.--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All the "See Also" links are already linked in the article. So that section need not exist. --maclean25 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK--Kharker 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)