Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 8 January 2013

Military camouflage is currently a War and military good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Military history: Technology B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

/Archive to 2011 /Archive 2012

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military camouflage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Good on you for taking on such a 'big' and important topic.

--- User:Thimbleweed was responsible for a major revision also.

I have the following comments:

• What's the purpose of the quote from Churchill at the start of the 'Principles' section? It's not terribly informative, and seems an overstatement.

--- removed.

• Some material isn't covered by citations

--- added refs.

• "In some instances camouflage is dropped altogether, as in the latter part of the Second World War when the US Air Force dropped camouflage paint for combat aircraft to reduce drag and weight." - the US Air Force didn't exist at the time (it was still the USAAF), the paint was dropped only from some aircraft and as well as increasing speed the paint was removed to make the aircraft easier to see - the USAAF in Europe actually wanted the German air air force to see and attempt to attack its bomber formations so that the defending fighters could wear down the German fighter force.

--- now says "USAAF"; cold war added, with ref.

• "Patterns are therefore generalized to work in several environments, rather than to mimic a specific terrain directly." - is this accurate? Many militaries have different sets of camoflauge for desert and forrested terrain.

--- removed offending portion (marked ), clarified with desert, snow, urban mentioned.

A rewording may be what we are looking for here. According to Brayley (2009), most armies dealing with global operations use a desert camo, a woodland/jungle camo and a snowsuit. What was meant was that there rarely are camouflages specific for farmland, conifer forests, bamboo forests, broadleaf forest, mountains etc, the temperate scheme (like the US M81 or British DMP) covers the lot (Brayley 2009). Thus they are "generalized, as opposed to the "photo realistic" hunters camo. If this point does not come across, it needs rewriting. Thimbleweed (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) --- I've rewritten it already, but we can say that DPM etc cover varieties of forest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) --- The basic point seems to have been lost in all the editing, and the points no longer reflect the sources. I have taken a stab at putting it back in order here. See if it can be used. Thimbleweed (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The capabilities so developed were put to use not only in the western desert, but also in Europe as in the Operation Bodyguard deception for the Invasion of Normandy." - similar approaches were also used in the Pacific (see, for example, Battle of Goodenough Island#Aftermath)

--- done.

• It might be worth noting that the Norwegian and Swedish navies continue to camouflage their small warships as they are designed to operate close to the shore

--- good idea, done, with image too.

• The aircraft in the "Maritime patrol Catalina painted white to minimise visibility against the sky" photo doesn't appear to be white - there are several better options at http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:PBY_Catalina

--- Checked the images; this one is best exactly because it shows that whiter than white is needed, plane still partly appears dark against the sky. Caption clarified.

Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

--- responses Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Those responses address all my comments. However, I'd strongly suggest that File:Arw4.jpg be replaced with one of the many alternatives as I really don't believe it was created by the editor who uploaded it (it's an unusually small photo for something created in 2006, lacks metadata and depicts and elite military unit - take together, these are hallmarks of a false copyright claim). Something like File:Australian SOTG sniper team June 2010.jpg would be a good alternative if you're looking for an effective example of camouflage in action (disclaimer; I uploaded that image!; I'm sure that there are better alternatives). Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do that. Many thanks for doing the GA review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English