Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mark XIV bomb sight


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Mark XIV bomb sight

 * Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

The Mk. XIV was Bomber Command's primary bombsight for much of the air war over Germany, equipping the thousands of heavy bombers that grew to dominate the UK's air fleet. Although not nearly as famous as the US Norden, The Mk. XIV is still one of the most advanced designs to see service, and had a number of unique features that made it more useful than the Norden in many roles - notably low-altitude attacks where it was used by Mosquitos in several famed raids.

The article has been extensively researched, illustrated by ORTS-released images directly from the surviving units in the RAF Museum, and has been stable for some time now. It's time to take this through to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day Maury, interesting article. Overall, seems like it meets the criteria, although I can't really judge the content. I only have a few nitpicks, which should hopefully help you on your way to FA with it: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Working with Henry John James Braddick..." could we get away with just saying "Henry Braddick" here?
 * "An image of the Mk. XI is available at this page." --> I think this would be better presented as a lettered note rather than a citation
 * for consistency, the Zimmerman citation should also use the short citation format
 * "File:462 Squadron RAAF Halifax bombsight AWM P01523.007.jpg": also needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one. "PD-US-1996" should work here, I believe;
 * Bibliography: probably should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname;
 * Bibliography: titles should use title case capitalisation, e.g. " A forgotten offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's anti-shipping campaign" --> " A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's Anti-shipping Campaign"
 * per WP:LAYOUTEL ("Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates...") the "External links" section header should be removed and the sister links box moved up to just below the Bibliography header.


 * All complete except for the image tagging - is that something I can do or does it have to be the original uploader? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, anyone can do it, but I've done this for you now. One thing I missed, this appears to be unreferenced: "In other respects the basic operation of the CSBS was considered fine as it was, there was no demand for greatly increased accuracy for instance." Is there a citation you can add for this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find it quickly so I just removed it. It's certainly not a loss to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- Been through about half the article so far, copyediting as I went, so pls let me know any concerns there. As far as the content goes, I know a lot more about British bombers of WWII than their bombsights, but I should be able to do a bit of fact-checking as I go. None of the info so far sounds problematic though; it also reads quite well and seems to be comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail. Will try to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent edits Ian! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Returning to complete copyedit plus source review -- as always, pls let me know if any concerns with my edits...
 * You should probably use the convert template for your various measures, e.g. altitudes.
 * Citation for end of second para under Operation?
 * Source review:
 * Might be worth putting "SD719" in the Armament, Volume I; Bombs and Bombing Equipment entry of the Bibliography to make the connection between citation and source clear.
 * Added... but is there a better way to do this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking again, and checking its entry in WorldCat, where does SD719 come from anyway? I think the citation should simply be "Air Ministry 1952" and leave SD719 out of things entirely (by the same token the "A.P.1730A 1943" citation should probably be "Air Ministry 1943", to also follow the usual author and date format). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FN14 link seems to need updating, it just goes to the front page of the RAF site.
 * Indeed... it's a bit surprising that the RAF didn't keep this around themselves. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes Henry Black a reliable source?
 * I'm not sure how to answer that... although the website in question is simply a personal one, the original article is published in a source that has been used in many places on the Wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which source and point me to some of the articles, Maury? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is the Bomber Command Association newsletter. One can find other articles from this source in RAF Bomber Command and night bomber, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not returning sooner -- tks for those, but they're not articles that have had extensive review so not sure how much they help. could I get a second opinion on the Black source? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. So the immediate source is what appears to be an amateur website; one of the articles but not the other notes publication also in the newsletter. Do we have any information about the expertise of either the website originator or the author? Is the newsletter an official publication, and does it have an editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think your response to this is holding up the review, which otherwise looks ready for closure. Is that right, ? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - we need more details about this source to be able to determine whether it is reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bomber Command Association newsletter was published for decades, but over time has gone moribund. The collection is now maintained by the RAF Museum, but the person in charge of the collection has not responded to my calls or emails. If someone in the UK is willing to take a shot at this, free of the time difference, I will provide the contact info if you email me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's it for now, I'll try and return to do some spotchecking of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - this looks good to me, only a few minor cmts / suggestions:
 * "...was to fly at night, which was taken up as the primary goal of Bomber Command..." was it a goal or would it be more accurate to describe it as a tactic or method of operation?
 * Indeed it would, this is a much better term. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Minor inconsistency in presentation here " AC Spark Plug" vs "A.C.'s" and "A.C. Spark Plug" (i.e. use of fullstops in the acronym - I suggest adopting consistent style at the least, although my reading of MOS:ACRO is that stops should generally avoided but I'll leave it up to you to determine).
 * I'll take your suggestion, all stops removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be potentially unclear: "bombing altitude be increased from 20 to 30,000 feet." I'm assuming "20" here means "20,000" and not "20" but perhaps it should be clarified?
 * Actually I should have used the convert tag on these, and now I have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...proved almost useless for operations in jet aircraft, as the limited distances visible through the sight from high altitudes made it almost impossible to aim before the aircraft had already passed the drop point." The implication here, as I interpret it, was that this was due to the increased speeds at which jets flew but I wonder if this might need to be spelt out for some readers?
 * Absolutely, see what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question / suggestion for further development: I'm unsure if its relevant or usual for inclusion is such articles (which I admit I'm not all to familiar with), but I wonder if the article would benefit from some mention of just how in-accurate bombing was overall during this period. Most of our readers probably would be surprised at how limited the technology actually was in comparison to the "precision" bombing that is used today (this limitation arguably necessitated the use of area bombing etc). I'm not suggesting a detailed discussion (which would be undue weight), but perhaps a short sentence in the first part of the article mentioning this might provide some context. Also did the development of improved bomb aiming (i.e. through the Mk XIV etc) have an impact on tactics during the war etc? And is there any assessment of the Mk XIV's impact / performance in general etc?
 * Well there is some of this covered in the bombsight article itself. But certainly a comparison to the Norden would be useful here, and especially the CSBS. Unfortunately, I have not found any really good source on the accuracy of this sight. I think it's the case that all of them were so bad that the accuracy wasn't improved so much as the ease of use. I'll poke about though, I agree it's useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course Google's ever improving Books makes a liar out of me, there are now several references available on the topic! I've added a section on the topic and it is indeed a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Overall, the article reads well to me although there are some places where the prose could potentially be tightened with more economical wording. Although this might come up at FAC it seemed a very minor issue to me.
 * If you have any prose suggestions, by all means, suggest away. I'm here to improve the article, not to gain badges (not that those hurt...) Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than this I added some information to a reference but didn't see any obvious issues. My edit is here . Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. These changes / additions look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing ... where I tried "in the dark", you may want "in dim light" or something, if that's more accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I made that change, it is an improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Review: All images are appropriately licensed, source links and license tags verified. No issues with images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no alt text for the images, which is no big deal, but this is - three of your sources report as dead or questionable. This MUST be addressed before any further discussion can occur concerning the closing of this ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have fixed the two dead links. Kges1901 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.