Wikipedia:Featured article review/Radar/archive1

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

The article was removed 07:42, August 10, 2007.

---

Radar

Review commentary

Messages left at WP Telecommunications, WP Maritime Trades, Pierre cb, Heron and David R. Ingham

Radar is very old promotion that was reviewed and kept under the old FARC system. It needs a new review for:

1a—prose.

There are one- and two-sentence sections and paragraphs throughout the article (looking like text that has been added piecemeal) and the bottom of the article generates into numerous lists that should be prosified.

1b—comprehensive.

Added below.

1c—factual accuracy.

Largely uncited.

2—MOS.

A rambling TOC that reflects piecemeal growth and a lack of organization, as well as WP:MSH problems. A See also farm (external links may also need review). External jumps. Incorrectly or incompletely cited references and notes (see WP:CITE/ES), as well as mixed reference styles (inline and cite.php). Wikilinking in need of review per WP:CONTEXT (common terms like aircraft are linked, while many technical terms aren't linked). The WP:LEAD is inadequate. Terms are bolded within the text (see WP:MOSBOLD).

4—focus.

The article rambles from the main focus, example: Coolanol and PAO (poly-alpha olefin) are the two main coolants used to cool airborne radar equipment today.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it would fail FA nowdays.

1. Radar functions and roles is a big list. There should be a sentence about each one.
2. Radars for biological research is an external link list, and has dot points for surveillance and fire control systems - which must be out of place.
3. There is also only a fairly shallow theory section. Perhaps the more indepth material should be in another theory of radar article.
4. But there should be formula's for the noise level,
5. how much range can be expected,
6. time/range-distance resolution,
7. frequency-velocity resolution and tradeoffs.
8. Bistatic radar only appears in the see also, but should have at least an introductory sentence.
9. The concept of false alarm needs to be covered and tradeoffs with sensitivity and false alarms, and what can be done to improve it.
10. We need to cover the time on target idea.
11. Synthetic aperture radar is not explained adequately - there should be a whole paragraph on this.

So I think the article fails the broad in coverage also. GB 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), accuracy (1c), MoS (2), and focus (4). Marskell 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1a and 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, unimproved per list above, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.