Talk:Aircraft camouflage/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This has languished long enough, I'll take the review. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I hope you enjoy it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• The article was originally written in AmEng, so the article should be standardized that way per WP:RETAIN.

OK, I've made the obvious fixes; not easy for a Brit! Let me know if I missed anything.

Tell me about it, it drives me a little nuts to write articles on British topics ;) I see a few "minimise"s that should be "minimize"s. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done.

• One dupe link for stealth technology in that section (and arguably, both links in the text are unnecessary given the hatnote at the top of that section)

Removed.

• Lots of websites I'm not sure about as far as RSes go - for example, what makes http://www.century-of-flight.net a reliable source? Can you go through the websites you use and point out what qualifies them for use?

Removed, and focused the text which was borderline relevant anyway. I think the others are reliable for their statements about camouflage. The IPMS and Scutts cover topics ignored by many textbooks, and they are not likely to be wrong about paint colors. Cross & Cockade has been used a couple of times; this is essentially military not academic, but again is for a knowledgeable and critical audience that insists on correctness on matters such as coloration. Nearly all the other sources are certainly reliably edited and published.

For http://www.wwiaviation.com/index.html, I can't find anything that provides credentials for the author of the site

Removed.

Ditto for http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/ - I don't know that we'd accept a hobbyist group as a reliable source

Removed.

I can't get http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftcam/index.html to open, so it's either dead or the site is blocked on my work computer.

Removed.

http://sepecat.info/b/2013/11/14/jaguar-snow-camo/ - also appears to be a modeling site

Removed. Can't see how to source this fact unless we can simply cite the photo on Flickr - if that's acceptable for the basic fact (Jaguars have sometimes had snow cam) then I can put it back.

There's this, this, and this (which you might be able to get enough from the snippets to cite). Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Now that was very clever of you. Sorted, thanks!

http://www.barryschiff.com/high_flight.htm - not so sure about this one either - Schiff is an experienced commercial pilot, to be sure, but I don't know that that qualifies him as a RS as Wikipedia defines the term. It could easily be replaced by this.

Thankyou, replaced.

• The article has too many images - while I understand the need to show various types of camouflage, images should not sandwich text. I would recommend moving a lot of them to galleries at the bottom of relevant sections.

I caught a lot of 'flak' for galleries earlier, so I've instead hidden 2 images and moved one, I've tried all widths and there is no sandwiching now.

• It seems a little odd that there's no mention of WWII developments in the lead.

Extended.

• "for diurnal-flown aircraft" - should be "for diurnally flown aircraft".

Reworded.

• My understanding on the USAAF dropping camouflage was to save weight, not to reduce drag.

Mentioned.

• Anti-flash white was not confined to British use, which is what that sentence implies.

Said "including".

• I wonder if things like chaff, radar jamming, and flares should be included

Interesting. They're certainly defensive countermeasures but I've not seen them described as camouflage: perhaps there is scope for a further article on those topics. Jamming for example is definitely an active measure, unlike camouflage which is essentially passive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the section on the Yehudi lights got me thinking about other active measures - figured it was worth asking. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are things like this, this, this, and this to beef up the Cold War section, since camouflage was extensively used in the wars fought during that period. Which is to say, the decreasing usefulness of camouflage applies mainly to the strategic forces of the US and USSR, not so much to tactical aviation in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, done.

• Also ran it through earwig's tool and it came up clear. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted.

• Came across this while looking for snow camouflage refs above - seems to be more useful than just that, so I'll put it in its own section. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you see this one? Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: That's a useful new book, I've added it and used it for the Soviet fighters. Reassuring, too, as the article covers the same territory. I think we're about finished here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so, good work. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)