Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/ASV Mark III radar

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

ASV Mark III radar
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

This is the radar that won the Battle of the Atlantic, along with its ship-mounted counterparts like the Type 271. With some fortuitous timing, which included the arrival of B-24s, the new frigates with huff-duff, and the Mark III, the German U-boat force was broken in a matter of months, never to recover. Also, the whole disinformation line is fun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day, Maury, overall this looks quite good and comprehensive. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * H2S radar is overlinked in the lead
 * Fixed. Did a link sweep over the entire article.


 * inconsistent spelling "realized" and "realised"
 * Urg, this is one of my pet peeves about Grammarly, which is otherwise superb and I recommend it to everyone, it gets confused about US vs. UK spelling.


 * in the body the following terms are overlinked: cathode ray tube, Eureka transpoding radar, night fighter, time base generator, lobe switching, waveguide, coaxial cable, slant range
 * All fixed.


 * advantage — the: should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash depending on your chosen style
 * I hate both, I used the later.


 * where their higher resolution allowed them to detect small lifeboats.: needs a citation
 * Done.


 * a 9 inches (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT) --> "a 9-inch (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT)" - this can be achieved by adding "|adj=on" to the convert template
 * Added.


 * on a 6 inches (150 mm) CRT --> "on a 6-inch (150 mm) CRT"
 * ditto.


 * citation 21 has page numbers on the source, so it is probably best to use these in your citation - the work itself appears to have identified authors and a year of publication here: :I added the page numbers but
 * Added.


 * citation 26 is inconsistently formatted - compare with Brown which you also only use once
 * citation 27 "Hanbury_Brown 1991, p. 311": the underscore should be a hyphen (or a space without the underscore, depending upon the answer to the next point below)
 * HB will be used more widely in the future.


 * in the Bibliography, Hanbury Brown should have a hyphen for consistency with the other entry (see Smith), or they should both have a space if you choose to render it that way
 * There is no dash etc in any reference I can find. How do I remove it from the SFN?
 * Removed this for you now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * inconsistent caps: "notably the new "Fliege" or "Additionally, fliege..."
 * Fixed.


 * in the Bibliography, Campbell should appear after Bowen; Gordon should appear before Hanbury-Brown
 * Done. Personally, I think we need to stop demanding this. We don't read these lists looking for entries, we link to them and click, so ordering is simply not important. The wikipedia is not printed, we shouldn't slavishly follow guidelines that only make sense in that medium. But no one listens to me.


 * ISSN for the IEE proceedings journal? Can probably be located here:
 * Can't find it.


 * which corresponds to the introduction of Naxos --> "which corresponded to the introduction of Naxos"?
 * Fixed.


 * Unfortunately, these loops also...: best to avoid the word "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
 * Removed.


 * available units. Bomber Harris: rank and full name on first mention
 * Fixed.
 * G'day, are you happy with Maury's responses here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of them have been addressed. The ones that remain are very minor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5

 * -ise vs -ize in some words which one should the article use?
 * ize I'm assuming as the UK spelling?
 * Both are allowed but -ise is more widely used in the UK. -ize is more part of university English.


 * 10 cm band compared to Mk. II's 1.5 m wavelength No English units and British units should be the primary units here.
 * Actually no, these were never measured in british units, wavelength has always been in meters since the very early days. I had a US radio from the 1940s that used inches, but the UK had switched over before this period and the US used the same units after the Tizard mission so their radars also used it. Every contemporary reference uses m and cm. "s-band" means "sentimeteric", a deliberate misspelling of the actual unit. You might think that "1.5 meter" implies something like "4 feet", but it's not like that, these bands are really just names.


 * Link MHz in the infobox.
 * Added, and s-band.


 * No English unit in the "Range" part in the infobox.
 * Someone else added?


 * Link kW and add volts too in the infobox.
 * Added kW. Watts measure power, volts measures, well, volts. These are not equivalent units so there's no conversion.


 * of reasons, the 1.5 m wavelength of the radar system No English unit?
 * produced microwaves at around 10 cm No English unit?
 * Link both kilowatts and microwave in the File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg image.
 * Overlinking?
 * I believe it is safe to add a link in an image because it is easier to click on the link instead of searching the link or searching it on Wikipedia itself same with tables. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * broadcast power from 7 to 100 kW Link kW here and add also volts here.
 * Again, where should the volts go here?


 * that operated on a 50 cm wavelength English unit?
 * the radar horizon being only 27 nautical miles (50 km; 31 mi) Link nautical miles here.
 * This is the convert tag, how do I do that?


 * the night of 1-2 March 1943 --> "the night of 1–2 March 1943" or "the night of 1/2 March 1943".
 * Fixed.


 * the end of the month, a full 30% of the U-boat Use per cent not % we only use it in tables and infoboxes.
 * Changed, but why is this?


 * while flying at 6,000 feet altitude No metric unit?
 * And, oddly enough, altitude is only ever measured in feet and angels. Even today.


 * detect signals in the 120 to 150 cm range No English units?
 * was sensitive between 75 and 300 cm No English units?
 * on the order of 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) Round the nought here.
 * How?
 * I believe it is unnecessary to use an extra nought here.


 * added antennas to detect 3 cm signals No English unit?
 * the Blind Approach Beacon System (BABS) at 173.5 MHz Link MHz.
 * Already linked in body.


 * Lucero was a transceiver tuned to the 1.5 m-band Remove the hyphen.
 * Removed.


 * Lucero's 500 W transmitter periodically Link watt.
 * Already linked on kW.


 * line with fixed steps indicating 1 mile (1.6 km) Use one instead of 1. Because every number below ten should be written in letters. Thus 3 should also be written in letters.
 * Convert tag, how do I do this?


 * and instead fixed at 1 mile range
 * This caused a -3 dB reduction What's a dB?
 * Linked.


 * in signal below about 40 kHz Link kHz.
 * Linked on first instance.


 * the 200 kW CV192 magnetron, compared to the original 40 kW version No volts?
 * would take 30 miles / 186,282 miles per second How much is that number in km/h?
 * It doesn't matter, it's still 0.00016 seconds.


 * submarine at 14 miles (23 km) at 1500 ft, 11 miles (18 km) at 1000 ft a number more than 999 should have a comma in each nummber.
 * added.


 * this significantly to 38.5 miles (62.0 km) Round the nought.
 * How?


 * All the refs with more than one page should be written in "pp" style not with a single "p". Also all the refs with more page numbers should have an "–".
 * Most of these are not page ranges, they are the format for single pages used in the reference. That is page 3 dash 4.


 * Ref 10, Remove the second 3 in the page numbers.
 * Ref 11, Switch the numbers.
 * Ref 12, Same as above.
 * Ref 16, "p. 3-4." --> "pp. 3–4."
 * Ref 26, No link of Blair?
 * Do you mean a link to the book? Added.

That"s anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 30, Switch the page numbers.
 * Ref 32, Same as above.
 * Ref 33, Same as above.
 * Ref 34, "p. 3-16." --> "pp. 3–16.".
 * Ref 35, "p. 3-15." --> "pp. 3–15.".
 * Ref 36, "p. 3-17." --> "pp. 3–17.".
 * Ref 43, "p. 372-375." --> "pp. 372–375.".
 * Ref 44, "p. 372-373." --> "pp. 372–373.".
 * Ref 45, "p. 3-9." --> "pp. 3–9.".
 * Ref 46, "p. 3-10." --> "pp. 3–10.".
 * Ref 47, "p. 3-11." --> "pp. 3–11.".
 * Ref 48, "p. 3-12." --> "pp. 3–12.".
 * Ref 49, "p. 3-13." --> "pp. 3–13.".
 * G'day, are you happy with the above? Need any tweaks, have any additional points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of my comments are adressed, but I am waiting until he addressed the rest. I'll ping him
 * anything outstanding here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll drop my replies, I do not think they're really important right now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Comments by Nick-D
The Battle of the Atlantic is one of the most interesting aspects of World War II, so it's great to see a high quality article on one of the most important Allied tools in this campaign. I have the following comments:
 * I'd suggest expanding the lead and the later sections to make it clear that this radar was a key element in the Allies' slaughtering German subs until the end of the war (and when the subs started using snorkels to minimise their vulnerability to radar they became largely ineffective) - the narrative sort-of stops in 1943
 * Indeed, expanded.


 * " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on an aircraft in a combat setting" - could this be changed to something like " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on combat aircraft"?
 * Fixed.


 * " However, the system was soon converted to follow the H2S model" - this is the first time H2S is mentioned in the article, and I think more information on what it is would be helpful
 * Indeed, expanded.


 * "Bomber Harris objected" - I'd suggest tweaking this to his proper name and position
 * Done.


 * "commander of Coastal Command, Philip Joubert de la Ferté" - I'd suggest adding his rank
 * This changed during this period and I'm not sure what it was at this point.


 * "The next night the same aircraft spotted a submarine at 7 miles (11 km) and successfully dropped depth charges on it" - does the source say which sub this was?
 * It does not, Lovell wasn't terribly interested in filling in details like this (which, admittedly, was somewhat out of context in his book).


 * "By May, the U-boats were being attacked continually from the moment they left port to the time they returned." - This is a bit of an over-statement. The Allies didn't operate close to German ports, and couldn't maintain contact with subs indefinitely
 * Improved, but it was continuous, they could encounter aircraft or hunter-killer groups anywhere from the Bay on, and this is the period where the mid-atlantic gap was covere:


 * "Even if they escaped into the Atlantic, boats were then attacked hundreds of miles from the convoys while they attempted to form up the wolfpacks. This was combined with the arrival of new frigates mounting microwave radars and huff-duff receivers, further hindering U-boat operations. Successfully forming up and pressing on to the convoys proved almost impossible" - what was the role of code breaking in this? (though, as I understand it, Huff Duff was more important). In general, the Allies sank subs when they approached convoys rather than roaming around the ocean.
 * It was the near simultaneous arrival of the ASV Mk III, the US versions of the same concept (ASG and DMS-1000), huff-duff, the new frigates and the enigma break of late 1943 that did it. If these had arrived peacemeal I don't think they would have been remotely as effective. Mark III was perhaps the least important of these, but that is what the article is about.


 * "one of the most effective disinformation campaigns of the war" - this doesn't seem to have been a "campaign". It was something a single quick witted officer said when interrogated. Disinformation campaigns were longer-lasting and very complex.
 * A better term? I used campaign simply because that's the term people use.
 * Something like "In spite of this early warning of a new system, German efforts were crippled by misinformation" seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "that they finally began to consider" - specify who "they" is here
 * Added.


 * " It would later become clear that the Battle of the Atlantic was won with the introduction of Mark III" - this is also an overstatement. Historians generally argue that the Battle of Atlantic decisively turned in the favour of the Allies in mid-1943 due to multiple factors which became effective at pretty much the same time (this radar, code breaking, more and better aircraft, etc)
 * Removed.

Support Yes, my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion for further improvements ahead of FAC, I suspect that Clay Blair's huge and authoritative works on the Battle of the Atlantic will have some useful material. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, are you satisfied with the responses here? Anything further? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, if get a minute could you check and see if you are happy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day, if you get a chance, could you please take a look at the image licensing on this one? I'll do the source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review
All the sources look of high quality and reliable. For verification purposes, it would be helpful to add the OCLC for the NSA archival documents, which is 122396382. The only thing I would think might be needed for FAC would (per Nick-D) be Blair's works on the Battle of the Atlantic and other less gizmo-focussed texts on the campaign covering the operational effects of the radar and Coastal Command aircraft/unit/formations that used it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Vickers_Wellington_Leigh_Light.jpg: why is this believed to be UKGov?
 * OK, this needs to go, as it has just been uploaded from a website and there is no information about author or publication. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * THis still needs to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * File:U-243.jpg: when/where was this first published? Why is it both UKGov and AustraliaGov?
 * Doesn't need publication date for both PD tags, but both tages are there because it is in a British government official photograph collection and was presumably taken by an Australian serviceman. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Australian tag currently in use requires that you "provide information of where the image was first published". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Have shifted this back to AustGov only, which is appropriate given it was taken by a RAAF crewman. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * File:FuMB-7_Naxos_and_FuMB-26_Tunis_antenna.jpg: when/where was this first published?
 * That information is not necessary for it to be PD in Canada. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It would seem based on authorship that the work would have been subject to Crown copyright, and the given tag states that in such a case copyright would have expired because the work "was first published more than 50 years ago". In order to ascertain that that is the case we would need to know when and where it was published. This detail would additionally affect its status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is most likely to be Canadian crown copyright, and needs publication information to be able to use that license. There is also no statement in the licence about crown copyright expiration applying worldwide, so I think this has to go unless a reasonable non-free rationale can be used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is beside the point. The web page clearly states the copyright has expired and there are no restrictions on use. Why are we debating the finer points of law when the page clearly states it's PD? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not beside the point. We don't accept what other sites say about the photos they host, we have to establish a valid one for Wikipedia to host it. The most likely valid licence is Canadian crown copyright. That licence needs publication information. Without that, or a reasonable non-free use rationale, it needs to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, the source of the image is Library and Archives Canada. They own the image, legally. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maury, it has to meet the requirements of one of the possible licences. The Canadian crown copyright licence (the most likely one) requires publication information. If you don't have publication information, it has to go (or be replaced by a non-free version). Just pinging in case I've got this wrong. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition there is the issue of US status, which is also dependent on publication time and place in the absence of a global expiration statement (as there is for UK crown copyright, for example). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So if it has to meet some, and the owner of the image states there is no license, then isn't the proper thing to do to make this no rights reserved? That's what the page says. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to meet some, it has to meet all the requirements for the licence used, which in the case of the Canadian crown copyright template (PD-Canada-Crown) means having a date of publication before 31 December 1968. PD-Canada-Crown (unlike PD-AustraliaGov) doesn't say that the Canadian government has asserted that expiry of crown copyright applies worldwide, so because images are held on servers in the US, it also has to have a valid US licence as well as a Canadian one. So, you need a publication date for this image to be used, and then a valid US licence as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This needs a valid US PD tag, assuming it isn't being claimed under Canadian crown copyright and just on being PD due to the creation before January 1, 1949. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Short_Sunderland_Mk_V.jpg: what is the date and authorship on this image, and what is its source? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This one will either have to go or will need a reasonable non-free rationale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused about this one. "It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or" - I do not understand why we need a date and authorship if it's PD. This particular aircraft was scrapped in 1945, and the image here states it was "flying the last operational sortie of the war undertaken by Coastal Command " so it would seem clear 1945. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, now we have a source, author and an approximate date it was taken, all we need now is for that information and the IWM link to be added to the image description, and I think it is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And then replaced by a "more official" upload. I know there's a way to crop the image down in the thumbnail, anyone know the trick? On further study I'm not sure this one did get scrapped, it may or may not be the one at Hendon, which I've been on, because NS-Z had it's codes changed several times. If this is that aircraft, ML824, the flight is on 1 May as it was renamed on the 12th and didn't fly any patrols during those two weeks. It flew one more sortee on the 13th but had been repainted by that time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, if you could add the details of the author and the approximately date it was taken to the File information on the Commons page, this will be good to go. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing this. This needs to be added to the Commons page under "expired crown copyright". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In the "date" section. Is that not where it should be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at File:Short Sunderland Mk V.jpg. There is no date section on that page. Where on that page does it give the name of the photographer or your assumptions about when it was taken? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the correct image. I think you need to refresh your browser cache. The correct image is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that one is good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maury, just checking to make sure that you have noticed that a source and image review have been carried out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get pings for this for some reason. I do not know how to respond to any of these questions, as I am the original uploader of only one, and I have no idea how I am to get the original publication date. I should point out that the source page for that image states "Restrictions on use: Nil", so it is not clear why the date is required. If this is holding up A or FA I suppose we could simply delete them all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day . Unless you wish to go down the track of non-free rationales, three of these need to go, the other is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you there Maury? Because this one has to be addressed. When should you address this one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was busy IRL. Given the choice of removing images or lacking the star, I'll take lacking the star. Sorry for wasting everyone's time, but on the upside, the article has improved for the effort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Maury, but it just doesn't work that way. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a number of people have been trying to help you get appropriate licences for these images to be used, but if you just refuse to learn how to do it or won't for whatever reason, any editor is completely within their rights to apply the site image policies and nominate them for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. And I have no doubt they will get deleted based on the current information. So if you want to use them, move them to Wikipedia instead of Commons and generate a non-free use rationale for them (or add the information that is required to the file page in the case of the Sunderland). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "refuse to learn how to do it or won't for whatever reason" - Yikes. I wrote to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage in November to clarify these issues. However, as you might have heard, we were in the midst of a rather contentious election, and the Minister is newly-appointed. I had them elevate the request within the Ministry, but I'm not sure how long that will take. In the meantime, why don't we simply remove that one image and add it back later? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Well it's been another week so I give up hearing back from the Ministry. I removed the image. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Peacemaker67. Does Maury's response above move the image review forward? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)