Talk:Military camouflage/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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, [aiming for a general colour match or to disrupt outlines, ---removed this] 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 [... above]), 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/wiki/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:

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.[17]" 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)

Thanks, good idea, para reworded and pattern described too. Not that being a non-computer forerunner is impossible, far from it, as this example proves! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "digital" I suppose. This article says digital camo is made with a computer, pixelated or not, so the TTsMKK very obviously can't bee seen as a digital camouflage. Then again, neither can O'Neill's camo. As it stands now, the two examples very nicely describe the root of modern pixelated designs, a major improvement over my original text! Thimbleweed (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the key word is forerunner, but no, digital doesn't imply computers. See Jacquard loom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)