Talk:Jadgschloss radar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jadgschloss radar article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] Wikifying

Needs to be broken up in sections, unbolded, unusual terms like "parabolic dish" or"PPI" linked, and the Notes section actually used for notes, not parenthetical comments. --Gwern (contribs) 15:47 29 January 2007 (GMT)

What has to be unbolded? I was under the impression that any "name" for an object being covered in the article should be bolded. Also, PPI is linked. And I'm not sure what you mean about the notes. In every book on writing style I've read, parenthetical are either supposed to be removed (because they break up reading flow, like this) or replaced by comma'ed sections, or removed to a footnote. Maury 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase Jadgschloss radar would be bolded, once, in the introduction since that is what the article is about, but you wouldn't bold every new term - you might italicize non-English words, but not one wouldn't bold them. The notes section is supposed to be for actual references, either simple bibliographic references or footnotes for specific pieces of text generated through use of Wikipedia:Cite.php. As it is, the notes section is just some mildly interesting and disconnected stuff from the rest of the article. They don't seem to be referencing any assertions in particular, and so would probably be better off if you could incorporate them into the main body of text. --Gwern (contribs) 19:41 29 January 2007 (GMT)

I always used Notes for notes and References for References. I do see what you are talking about in the cite link, but that's a style I have yet to come across. Is this common? Can you suggest a better name than "notes" perhaps? Maury 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)