Misplaced Pages

Talk:Military camouflage

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thimbleweed (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 24 January 2013 (→Some comments: Pixelation before pixelation?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:20, 24 January 2013 by Thimbleweed (talk | contribs) (→Some comments: Pixelation before pixelation?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.


A summary of this article appears in camouflage.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
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

Some comments

Some suggestions/proposals for the lead:

1. The 1st 2 sentences of the lead don't clearly define the subject - is it just visual or does it include radar, IR etc ? The lead sentence should have a link to Camouflage. Maybe something more like "Military camouflage is the use of camouflage by a military force to conceal personnel and equipment from visual observation by enemy forces..." Done.

2. Would a lead pic with some background be better (e.g. File:Arw4.jpg) ? Good idea, done.

3. I think the lead is still a bit too long (for the size of the article). For example the "previously known as" bit, which is specific to (British?) English probably shouldn't be in the lead (especially if it's not elsewhere in the article) - maybe a separate Etymology section. Shortened, removed the prev. bit.

4. "camouflage" is in italics which means I'd expect it to be linked to an article about the word camouflage (e.g. on wiktionary). Yes, done.

5. "military camouflage was first practised in the mid 18th century" ... "Camouflage was developed for military use ... in 1915" is contradictory. Thanks, clarified first baby steps, extensive development. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

DexDor (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) --- Thanks, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments:

1.a) Would it be better to put the Fashion&Art section into separate article(s) ? Advantages include avoiding duplication with the Camouflage article and that the article(s) could be in fashion/art categories/templates.

--- Camouflage is basically the parent article, meant to have a summary of mil cam but not to replace it, so some overlap is correct; if anything, we should therefore have more here, not less, though I think there's basically enough to serve here. Since the fashion and art are specifically in reaction to mil cam, they properly belong here, and even if (looking down now, not up) they are split off as sub-articles one day, we'll still want about this much here to show how the sub-articles fit in.

b)To me the 1919 pic looks out of place on this article.

--- Clarified the caption to show the connection; and if the text is right, so is the image.

c)The "within three weeks" bit is uncited. Removed.

d)The bit about Barbados etc begs the question "is this still the case?" - it needs a date. Done, though inclusion is quite borderline.

2. is "authorlink=Jon Latimer" supposed to be visible ? A | added.

3. There's an unusual example of camouflage at File:A-7D Corsairs 354th TFW at Korat 1972.JPG, not sure if it could be used here or the A.C. article. Why not.

4. The article says "auditory ... camouflage is rare", but if "camouflage" includes minimising noise then it's common - e.g. subs, helos, AFVs, clothing - even the swimming style troops are encouraged to use. Thanks, clarified - examples were already present, contradicting the claim.

DexDor (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Comment on digital camouflage:

A sentence now reads: "Like Germany, the Soviet Union experimented with camouflage patterns, such as "TTsMKK" developed in early 1945, that are thought to be forerunners of modern digital textile patterns." The source, camouflage.net claim no such thing. It would be impossible anyway, since the pattern predates computers and pixelation with a good margin. I suggest either a better source or a rewording to something like "Pixelated shapes predate computer, already being used ..." or something to similar effect. Thimbleweed (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: