Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark XIV bomb sight/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2018 [1].

Mark XIV bomb sight edit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mk. XIV was one of the most numerous bombsights of WWII, equipping the majority of Bomber Command during the height of their campaign against Germany. Connected to the NBS, it survived in the post-war period into the 1960s. Nevertheless, it is practically unknown today, overshadowed by the much more famous Norden (advertising pays!).

The article went through a A-class some time ago and has remained pretty static since then. There were questions about one source (Black) that don't appear to have ever been resolved, so reviewers should look at that thread.

And in case anyone is curious, although today we normally write "bombsight", such was not the case in the RAF's contemporary documents, as is the case for the "computor". Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

~~The RAF was working on the Automatic Bomb Sight along these lines: should this be "an" rather than "the"? It hasn't been mentioned before.~~
~~Suggest adding "contemporary" before "Norden bombsight" in the body, as you do in the lead.~~
It seems extraordinary that one branch of the UK forces would deny another branch access to important technology such as the Norden bombsight. If the background can be made both concise and interesting, it would be nice to get it in a footnote.

I rewrote this to fix both of these, it should be much clearer now.

~~What does "suction-powered" mean?~~

And this.

~~Any information about the Mk. XVI? You mention the XV and XVII.~~

None whatsoever! I asked the RAF Museum and they had no idea either.

~~As the Naval Mosquito did not have a bomb aimer's position, the sight head was unstabilized and mounted in front of the pilot: why unstabilized?~~

None of the sources say, so I added a note to that effect. I strongly believe it was simply because there wasn't room for it all in front of the pilot, the stabilizer is half of the mechanism. That, and that at low altitude the effect of banking the aircraft would be a few yards difference in the aim line, instead of kilometers!

The sight head was mounted on top of a square platform, with screw adjustments that could be used to level the platform. A spirit level on the sight allowed it to be checked. The normally periodic and minor changes required to level the sighting head could be performed by removing the cover over the spirit level and then turning a small adjusting screw on the mount. Repetitive, unless these refer to different things, in which case that's not clear.

Indeed unclear, rewritten.

~~Can we get a link or an explanation of the difference between the systematic error and random error?~~

I added this with a note and an inline to a discussion. I guess it could be in the body, but take a look and see what you think of it now.

That's everything I can see. I made some minor copyedits; the prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes look good; this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

"Low Level Bombsight, Mark IIIs" (meant as a plural proper noun): Ugh.

Nice catch... reworded sentance for clarity.

"were in focused at infinity, allowing the user to focus their eyes on the target and not have to change focus to see the line": two many instances of "focus". "in focused"?

Indeed, fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:462_Squadron_RAAF_Halifax_bombsight_AWM_P01523.007.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Ronald Maxwell Hines was a member of No. 462 Squadron during the war. At some point he gave his collection of photographs to the Australian War Memorial. (We don't know when that was, although if we really, really wanted to know, I could drive round there and ask. They keep this information on file.) The handover date legally became the publication date, and the images became Commonwealth-owned photographs. Copyright expired world-wide 50 years after the images were taken during the war. We could use the {{PD-AustraliaGov}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Not sure about the direct external link in Note 2. Such notes are normally treated as part of the text and subject to the same restrictions regarding ext. links. An alternative would be to treat the link as a source and use a normal citation.

Do you mean the link to the image? It's not being used to cite the text, so I'm not sure what restrictions apply here?

There's a hyphen in the page range of ref 38 which should be an ndash.

Fixed.

"Harry Black" sources: the publisher in each case is given as the "RAF Bomber Command Association Newsletter". I guess, however, that since you give no details of this newsletter, e.g. dates, your source is this website, a privately prepared archive – see "about the archive". I'm not doubting the late Harry Black's credentials, but I think the source information should make the provenance clear.

My source is the web site. I contacted the current "owners" of the newsletter for further information but they were unbelievably unhelpful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to these points, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meets FA standard in my opinion. Some minor suggestions:

"Windspeed" should be "wind speed"
"venturii" should be "venturi"
"center" should be "centre"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.