Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project Excalibur

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project Excalibur[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Project Excalibur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I apologize in advance for the length of the article I'm about to ask you all to read. It is big. Very bigly. But I do think this is a topic that requires depth.

I do not consider this article "complete" in its current form. I am still mystified as to whether or not there was any lasing going on. Some sources speak of some sorts of effects, like focusing, while others suggest it was all an illusion. I have attempted to contact many of the key players, but my emails go ignored. I don't think there will be a definitive answer for a couple of decades, so we go with what we have.

Also please take note of the talk page and consider BL's comments. Make of them what you will, but please be sure to first consider the state of the article when I began my edits.

And should it retain the Unrelated Excalibur program section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Excalibur firing.png - the source doesn't attribute the image as far as I can tell - how do we know this is a US govt work?
Source attributes the image to the LLNL, a US government lab. Same attribution can be found here.
Looks good then
LLNL images are not necessarily PD - see note at {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe that is only true recently when the lab's management was given over to private-sector companies. At the time this was taken it was controlled directly by the DOE but managed via the University of California. It is also questionable whether their new tags are legally enforceable. Is there anyone that really knows? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How recently? I'm aware of discussions around licensing at LLNL going back 20 years. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gfc-xrl.jpg - per your note on the Commons description page, the license needs to be corrected
Can I do that or does it have to be the original uploader?
You can do that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to the library for clarification.
Is that an issue? Links go dead all the time, if we eliminated all source material with dead links, the Wiki would be pretty sparce... Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not a matter of deleting things with dead links, but updating the links (or at least getting an archived link for the page). Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest check out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nate. Can you confirm you are satisfied with the actions taken here please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we're good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Placeholder until I review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passing comment for now, many citations are missing access-date and publisher, possibly other parameters as well. Could you expand all those out?

@Kees08: Sorry kees I only saw your post now. I looked through the entire bib section and every cite has a correct source, [publisher/newspaper/journal]. I don't bother with accessdate, that's for the robots. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue Ok, the Truman library got back to me and pointed me to this page. It states "As far as the Library is aware, this item can be used freely without further permission." Is that enough? I'll change the source to this page anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd probably want to know what's the basis for that assertion (are they saying it's a government work, for instance?), but I'll ping @Nikkimaria:, since she knows more about copyright than I do. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Ideally we would know more, but given (1) reliable source and (2) US institution commenting on US image (meaning no international copyrights to worry about) and (3) the plethora of no-known restrictions tags at Commons, I'd be inclined to accept that as sufficient. See above re LLNL though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Damn this nomination is already 4 months old I'll make a little move here.

Intro

  • allowed attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers away. Maybe add miles too could be handy.
@CPA-5:Sorry for my tardy replies! I've added "(miles)" without a number... thousands of one is thousands of the other.
  • In a famous 1988 60 Minutes interview, As there are two numerical values here it is probably best to spell the first one out here exept in this case (because the first is a year) please change the sentence or change "60" into "sixty".
Fixed.

Conceptual development

  • gain in an aluminum plasma link aluminum.
Done.
  • of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium, link chlorine, calcium and titanium.
Done.

High Frontier

  • that he did not have access to the president. --> "that he did not have access to the President."
Done.

Early skepticism

  • if they were provided $150-$200 million --> "if they were provided $150–$200 million".
I do not see a change here?
@CPA-5:} No, I mean, what is the change you are asking for? I see no difference before and after. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5:That is not visible on my screen. The bot will change that shortly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage test

  • Robert McFarlane, head of the U.S. National Security Council. Shouldn't it be US National Security Council because the rest of the article uses US instead of U.S.?
It should.

APS report on directed energy weapons

  • who had invented the CO2 laser --> "who had invented the CO2 laser"
Fixed.

Brilliant Pebbles begins

  • to somewhere between 750 and 1000. --> "to somewhere between 750 and 1,000."
I think we only add the comma for larger numbers. Anyone know the MOS on this?
  • By WP:DIGITS it should because every above 1,000 has a comma.
Actually, the comma in this case is optional, it's only 5 digits where you need it. But I added it anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and focused their efforts on theatre ballistic missiles. British theatre. Or is it the offical name?
It is not, but my spell checker things I'm British.

Teller, SDI and Reykjavík

  • officials of the United States government --> "officials of the United States Government"
Fixed.
  • Teller deployed x-ray lasers all --> "Teller deployed X-ray lasers all"
Direct quote.

Excalibur

  • it is estimated that about 3 kJ/cm² How much is 3 kJ/cm² in U.S./Imperial customary measurement system?
There is no equivalent unit in common use, only the SI. One can convert this to many US-based units, but they don't really use them.
  • If a typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) British metre plus should the U.S./Imperial customary measurement system not be first because Americans don't use metres that much as feet.
Units were originally given in SI units. This is common even in US documents when considering aerospace topics.
  • at a distance of 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) Same as above.
As above, I'm going with the units in the document.
  • metals; selenium, zinc and aluminum have been mentioned specifically. unlink aluminum.
Fixed.
  • of that into a beam travelling out the end. British travelling.
Fixed.

X-ray based attacks

  • as much as 10 miles (16 km) long. the "(16 km) isn't necessary.
Why?
  • It's not necessary to use two the same units spread in an article.
  • We should double check this, as I've been advised otherwise in my own reviews. IS there any standing policy or guideline on this issue? Adding a conversion certainly doesn't hurt the encyclopedia, far as I can tell. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boost-phase attacks

  • be studied through the 1960s and 70s --> "be studied through the 1960s and 1970s"
Fixed.
  • a few hundred yards Could be handy if you add metres in this sentence.
Fixed.

Excalibur's promise and development issues

  • across hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. Could you add miles in it too?
I think the note at the top covers this.
  • for ICBMs launched from Kazakhstan, some 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) --> "for ICBMs launched from Kazakhstan, Soviet Union some 1,900 miles (3,000 km)"
Quoting original units.
  • as deep as 30 kilometres (19 mi) --> "as deep as 19 miles (30 km)"
Here too.

Notes

  • Note A and H should have a citation at the end of their sentences or paragraphs.
A is cited in the body, H is cited in the note. Are you saying we need a cite on the meaning of "loose marbles"? I would argue that.
  • Note E should switch all the km and miles. Miles should be first because of U.S./Imperial customary measurement system.
Quoting original source.

Citations and books

  • Ref 3, should have an original url.
It does... why is it not showing up, anyone know?
  • Ref 20, should have url, journal or a book link or code.
Fixed.
  • Ref 25, no page number.
Fixed.
  • Ref 74, pp. S10-S12. --> pp. S10–S12.
  • Ref 90, pp. 81-82. --> pp. 81–82.
  • Ref 99, pp. 229-232. --> pp. 229–232.
The bot will get these eventually.
  • The PDF "The ABM debate: strategic defense and national security" from the writer Jayne, Edward Randolph is a dead link.
Working for me, although it is definitely slow to respond.
  • The rest of the refs and citations is for the source reviewer.

Images

  • In the File:Excalibur_firing.png image stated "hundreds or thousands of kilometers away." please add miles in the sentence too.
This gives my tummy grumblies. I'm ok with the mention in the text, but the idea of having to explain that km and miles are similar concepts more than once strikes me as going a bit far. Specific numbers are one thing, but the underlying concept... that's another.
  • File:Tumbler_Snapper_rope_tricks.jpg stated "these x-rays to allow attacks over long distances." X-rays should be capitalised.
Fixed.
  • File:Dominic_Kingfish_002.jpg stated " in the 1950 and 60s, such as this ">80 km high" Kingfish shot of Operation Fishbowl, inspired the concept of using x-rays as a ballistic missile defense system. --> in the 1950 and 1960s, such as this ">49 miles (80 km) high" Kingfish shot of Operation Fishbowl, inspired the concept of using X-rays as a ballistic missile defense system."
This is also the actual unit used in the source. See page 4 of this.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: OK, I think I got the few remaining items. I didn't see the second 10 miles... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, can you confirm if you are happy with the responses/supporting as yet? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes this one has my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Only days later, in the 23 February 1981 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology Delete "in"
Fixed.
  • Give the chemical symbols of all elements on first use
I tried this, but it really looked worse. I'll add them in places where there are chemical formulas, but I don't see any examples.
KrF was the one that caught my eye--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that's an example where it should be used. Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worthwhile to add a photos of Teller and Wood
Added a useful one of Teller, but it seems we don't have one of Wood and Google Images turned up little that was useable.
  • 23 April 1987, four years to the day Umm, the speech was 23 March
And the paper was released in July! Removed
  • Zeus was limited to about 75 miles clarify that this is the range to which Zeus was limited.
Clarified. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Maury, thanks for your efforts with this one. Overall, this looks ok to me, but I really cannot comment on the content, I'm sorry, as it is well beyond me. I have the following comments/observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers (miles) away: not sure about this -- the conversion seems awkward without actual numbers . Would "attacks on missiles at very long range" work? I note the earlier comment, so won't die in a ditch if you choose not to implement
I am removing (miles) and leaving it as is. If we assume someone is capable of reading the article then we have to assume they understand that "kilometers" is a measure of distance and "thousands" of them is a long distance.
Works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest mentioning the Cold War, and linking, probably in the lead (maybe even in the first sentence of the lead, for instance: " to develop an X-ray laser as a ballistic missile defense (BMD) during the Cold War"
Agreed.
  • on tiny fibres... --> should this be "fibers" as a US topic?
Grammarly is supposed to switch spelling based on the contents, but as you can see this does not actually work. I think I got them all.
  • same as above for "kilometres", "behaviour" and "focussing"
Got these for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the work's section on potential uses were all weapons... --> "the work's section on potential uses focused entirely on weapons..."?
Fixed.
  • starting in the late 1959s --> "late 1950s"
Fixed.
  • As of 2014 it reportedly achieved a... --> "As of 2014 it had reportedly achieved a..."
Fixed. But should this even be here? I left it in from an earlier version but it's not clear why... update- removed section
  • the link checker tool reports the following terms to be overlinked: Lowell Wood, Edward Teller, materials science, hologram, virus, optical resolution, nuclear fusion, inertial confinement fusion, James Abrahamson, free electron laser, Ray Kidder, Caspar Weinberger, Charles Townes, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Robert McFarlane, mestastable state, laser gain, US Army, DARPA, US Air Force,
Fixed.
  • in the Citations, accessdate for citations # 43, 49, 103, 104, 106, 118, 136 and 137?
The bot will get any that still need it.
G'day, to which bot are you referring to? I'm not aware of one that does this task. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, but I note when I go to older articles I wrote they've been filled in and I know I'm too lazy to have been the culprit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Citations, publisher for citations # 3, 43, 136 and 137?
Last two gone, others fixed.
  • in the Citations, first name for the author for citation # 3?
Uhhh, Reagan or Gorby? CNN is in, there's no name.
Hmmm, I assume Past AR meant "Kirchner" (citation # 4). Damn his eyes. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Citations, citation #3 is displaying a double full stop
Fixed.
  • in the Citations there is a mixture of date format, e.g. compare "2012-05-14" with "September 18, 2009" with "12 November 1985" -- probably best to use a single format
Fixed?
  • in the Citations, # 19 probably should be converted to a lettered note for consistency
I use a simple rule here: if it's used once, it's inline
Hmm, not sure I've explained this clearly. I mean a lettered note (not a citation) such as that which has the text "Visible-spectrum gas lasers that were optically pumped by nuclear weapons had been developed and tested, and it is likely the Aviation Week article is confusing these earlier tests with the 1978 X-ray test.[24]". AustralianRupert (talk)
Ohhhh, I see it now - looks like I simply put an opening ref tag in the wrong place, that shouldn't be a note but an actual cited statement, as it is now.
Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, Bell Labs should appear before Bloembergen (alphabetically)
Fixed.
  • in the Bibliography, suggest removing the second link for William Broad as it isn't necessary
Fixed. Why someone added that...
  • in the Bibliography, is there OCLC or similar for Blum?
  • in the Bibliography, ISSNs for the Hecht, Heppeheimer, Herken and Stevens works?
No idea on these.
Added for you. These can be found on worldcat.org. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies seems like it might be out of alphabetical order
Fixed.
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs use hyphens and some don't -- suggest being consistent here
I didn't add any of these and I'm not going to change them.
  • in the Further reading, Thomsen is out of order (alphabetically)
Uhhh, maybe this changed since you looked at it? Seems ok.
Yes, it's correct, apologies. Not sure what I saw there -- all I can guess is that maybe the punch I took to the head in unarmed combat training that morning was worse than I thought...or I have, in fact, finally lost my marbles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources: look pretty good to me (although I caveat that this isn't a field I know much about), except can you please clarify how globalsecurity.org, astronautix.com, and laserfest.org satisfy the requirements of WP:RS? For instance, are the authors published experts with qualifications in the field, are there sources listed on the pages, is there editorial oversight, is the information accurate when compared to other reliably published sources, etc?
Laserfest is a "collaboration between the American Physical Society, the Optical Society, SPIE and IEEE Photonics" - I think that's good enough.
globalsecurity.org I replaced
astronautix.com is a reference to the range, which seems good enough?
Laserfest is probably ok based on your research above. Re astronautix, I think it should be ok as it appears to have been written by Andreas Parsch, who seems to be cited in a few works: [1]. That's probably the limit of my ability to source check, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury Markowitz just checking you've seen this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{@AustralianRupert: I had not... Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC) @AustralianRupert: Ok, three more down. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day AustralianRupert, it isn't clear to me if you satisfied with the responses regarding your source review. Can you clarify please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the sourcing meets the required standard. Happy for others to chime in though if they disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Project_Excalibur&oldid=900845228"