Talk:Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation 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 task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.


older entries[edit]

"Col. Alexa described the system to the press in 2007: "The human eye sees basically three bands of light. The ARCHER sensor sees 50. ... "

Oh, please! That's unencyclopedical gibberish. Regarding the human eye, she's obviously referring to "red", "green", and "blue" (which are by no way clearly seperable bands), but before all the "50 other bands" seem quite fantastic to me. -- 790 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I included it because it is a simple non-techbnical explanation, if not completely technically correct. I did characterize the comments as being given to the press, to put it in that context. I agree that outside of a direct quotation, it would be unencyclopedic. But this guy is in charge of the whole program, so he is a reliable source. I think the more technical information given below expands on this, but if you have better sources, incorporate them. Dhaluza 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful[edit]

ARCHER's full capabilities might be regarded as sensitive U//FOUO information. Please follow proper OPSEC procedures when editing this article. Scetoaux 00:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as everything is pulled from publicly available sources, and it appears this is the case, there should be no problem with U//FOUO. -- Huntster T@C 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Going through the article just now, it makes me nervous the amount of detail this article really goes into. Problem is, I don't think there are provisions on Wikipedia for sensitive information found from reliable third-party sources. U//FOUO was probably breached here, but as far as that goes, there is, as far as I know, no actual deletion of content that could or should be done on this basis. My suggestion to be careful still applies. Just because it's publicly available in a reliable source does not mean that it isn't sensitive information that should have its distribution limited. Just be mindful of what you put here. Our enemies can read Wikipedia, too. Scetoaux (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but I hold to the mantra that Wikipedia does not censor verifiable information. Given that these were taken from purely public sources, I hold no concern. The same info could have been obtained from any of these. Huntster (t@c) 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And you just made it a whole lot easier to get this info... 132.38.190.22 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand. scetoaux (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?[edit]

Congrats on having the article featured in the "Did You Know?" section on the front page! To quote the bit:

Had a picture of the GA8 aircraft too. I'm always happy for Civil Air Patrol publicity :) -- Huntster T@C 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I would like to convey my congrates too - as the writer of the expanded GA, GA8 and GA200 entries (and needs work) - its good to see other articles involving GA Aircraft (also wrote the CAP entry - u made a nicely placed addition - thanks). I grew up with GA in the 80's - 'the boys in the front shed' - the GA8 is proving to be a great little aircraft :) - NB - the prototype GA8 pic was taken by moi circ 1999 at LVAC (note left of the pic is the wing tip of Geoff Trappets'(Wing. Comm. RAAF)/Peter Furlongs'(GA part owner) P51-D restored Mustang. Cheers DeafCom, Sept 21, 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafCom (talkcontribs) 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Eight other aircraft? This is entirely, wholly, and completely false. The ARCHER system has never been the first resource to locate a crash. If overflew those sites to gather data, but they were all previously known crashes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.91.24.168 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That was according to news sources and the searchers themselves. The crash sites were apparently previously unknown (though the fact that the craft were lost was known). See the referenced sites. Huntster (t@c) 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that said, it would likely behoove CAP members to not be the ones adding sensitive information to the article. The general public may not have agreed to OPSEC and an NDA, but we all (theoretically) have. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but since the material has been published in the public domain (out in the open), it would be exceedingly hard for any "charges" to be brought against a member using it. I have no concerns with actions here. Huntster (t@c) 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

I think that this article falls short of what is required to cover this subject adequately. Here are some specific areas that I believe need attention:

  • " ... an aerial imaging system that produces ground images far more detailed than plain sight or ordinary aerial photography" How much more detailed? In what way more detailed?
  • There's much hyperbole about hyperspectral/multi-spectral, but no definition of what range of emf that's referring to. IR, UV, X-ray?
  • I had to follow the references to discover that the on-board system records data for later analysis, it doesn't happen in real-time. But I have no idea how the data gets transferred from whatever form the aircraft captures it in to whatever or wherever it's analysed, or indeed where it's analysed. Is that done locally, or at some central site?
  • Most importantly of all though is the misleading "science". "The human eye sees basically three bands of light. The ARCHER sensor sees 50." I understand that's a quote, but it's also clearly nonsense. Which might be OK if the scientific facts were given to balance or explain that nonsense, but they aren't. There aren't 3 or 50 or any other number of "bands of light".
  • "ARCHER is essentially something used by the geosciences. It's pretty sophisticated stuff … beyond what the human eye can generally see.." seems to be about as close as this article gets to describing how this system actually works.

I'd suggest beefing up the actual science behind this bit of kit. I believe that will require substantial work, so I'm afraid that I have no choice but to fail this article's GA nomination. I hope that the editors will continue to work on it, and to improve it. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was relatively simple to add some additional referenced content to address the valid points above, and there was no need to remove any of the content, since it is supported by the additional refs. Specific to the points above (respectively):
  • Additional detail on how detailed was added including quantifying plain sight
  • The spectral range and resolution is now specified and explained.
  • The article did explain that the data is both processed in real-time and stored for later re-analysis.
  • The bands referred to in the quote are now defined and explained in the technical section.
  • I'd leave the detailed explanation of how the system works in general to the linked articles such as hyperspectral imaging
-- Dhaluza 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article looks pretty good now, well worth nominating again IMO. --Malleus Fatuarum 11:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA passed[edit]

The work that's been done on this article since its last GA nomination has more than addressed the issues I expressed concern about in its recent review. I'm very pleased to be able now to list this article as a GA. Congratulations to everyone involved in its development; it's an interesting and informative read. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)