Talk:Ambrose Channel pilot cable

Sources to include

Ambrose Channel ships now use the following aids to navigation GPS: Daniello, Vince. "The Perfect Plot." Yachting, July 2006: 34. RADAR: Andrea K. "How this Ship Came in." New York Times: 1. Dec 04 1994. Lighted buoys: "New York's Ambrose Light to be Demolished." Journal of Commerce, July 28 2008 I'll add these in the next 24 hours in order to support a claim that is currently unreferenced. Andrew³²⁷ 21:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Review proposal

Hello, Andrew. I am considering reviewing this article (pretty interesting), but am new at this, so it might be an interactive process. Are you okay with that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I believe that all GA reviews should be interactive with lots of back-and-forth. Andrew³²⁷ 22:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Such enthusiasm! How could I possibly disappoint? Okay, I'll start the review process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ambrose Channel pilot cable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J. Johnson (talk · contribs) 19:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting review. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is interesting, and I think it has prospect of being a "good article". However, it seems to me there are problems with writing, organization, and completeness, which I will describe below.

I am also concerned that the references are inconsistently formatted (also: IS ALL CAPS REALLY GOOD?), incomplete (including lack of specific page numbers, and even incorrect, which reflect poorly on the article, but these (except for correctness) are explicitly not required for GA status. Still, I would urge correction of these problems.

I fixed the CAPS. The article titles were capitalized in their original publications, but I see how it was distracting. Andrew³²⁷ 14:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead sentence seems awkward. "Radio cable" suggests antennas or such, and coming before mention of being "laid in Ambrose Channel" is a bit confusing. I will see if I can offer a better formulation.

 Done I like your suggested lead, so I used a slightly adapted version. Andrew³²⁷ 19:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed the sentence about this cable leading to other developments, a view not supported by the sources. A good image would help, and we should consider whether to move the image below to the lead. Aside from that this section passes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the image up to the lead. It's the most descriptive image I've found. I'm somewhat surprised that contemporary sources didn't publish photographs of the cable being laid or tested, but so far I've come up empty in my search. Andrew³²⁷ 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looking good. (Just by chance I was looking at a picture last night of the equipment they used to send "telephotos" circa 1920, which reminded me of how cumbersome photos were all the way up into the 1950s. Not surprised!) I was thinking of extracting the diagram of the amplifier circuit from Crossley, but I think the cable detail suffices. I'll look over the rest of this stuff later tonight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting diagram for sure. I'm not sure if it would overwhelm the text, so I didn't add it, but I certainly wouldn't mind if you think it will improve the article. Andrew³²⁷ 20:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would depend on the size. I might explore that. If we throw that in the cable detail could go down into installation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Background

Also needs some work. Connection with dredging seems tenuous, and suggests that narrowness of the channel was the problem that the cable alleviated. In fact the narrowness of the channel was a problem only in the fog. And it seems that waiting for the fog to clear was a problem mainly for the passenger liners. This would be a good place to mention the expense of waiting.

"Earl Hanson developed the cable and oversaw its installation" — surely these details should go into "Development" and "Installation"? Perhaps some material on development? Which previous attempts? New London?

 Done I have removed the two paragraphs that went beyond "background", which with the previous changes now makes this a pass. (But the citations could use some cleanup.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Cable installation and operation

The single sentence on installation is inadequate; at a minimum it should relate the date of installation, and perhaps a description of the system. "Installation" is awkwardly placed with "Operation", and perhaps should follow "Research and development". It certainly should mention the first attempt at installation, and _why_ "it broke in 52 different places". I believe one of the sources explains what was done to avoid this breakage in the later attempt, and that would seem worth mentioning.

The "steady Morse code signal" did not appear by magic; "Operation" should include how this happened. (E.g., the generating apparatus ashore.)

This section and the one previously following ("Specifications") were merged into the following section (with some material for "Installation" removed):

Description and operation

? Pending pass. As I rewrote this section myself 1) I should hope I addressed my expressed concerns, but 2) I might not be an adequate judge of my own work, so other comments will be welcomed. I do note that I have yet to document one of the claims; I will task my self with doing that shortly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edits about left/right headphones is not going to fly: this system was not in stereo. As Crossley described it, they switched between loops, as quite evident from the circuit diagrams in several sources. If a source says otherwise it's probably wrong. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted any detail about what happened once the signal went to the headset. Andrew³²⁷ 20:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifications

This term usually refers to the requirements of construction or installation, but the text is more in the nature of description. Perhaps these details should be combined with some other material under a "Description" section.

In "sources differ" Radio World is cited twice; the first item is not supported by the source. I am unable to verify the source for the 20 mile figure; two other sources I have found mention 16 miles. It is misleading to say "sources disagree" when three are in concurrence.

I disagree with your last sentence, but I changed it to say 16 miles anyway. Andrew³²⁷ 03:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I am working on adding much more detail to this section, but I have fixed the two complaints stated in this part of the GA review. Andrew³²⁷ 03:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This section incorporated into the one above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reseach and development

• How was the Navy aware of this need? (Citation?)

The Navy used to have a greater responsibility for assisting civilian shipping than it does now. The Navy also used the Channel for its own ships. I found a news item describing an entire battleship group stuck at anchor for several days waiting for fog to clear. I doubt there are any sources that say "The Navy does not like shipping backing up in Ambrose Channel", so the closest I could find was an article that talked about the Navy's efforts to support aids to navigation in Ambrose Channel before the cable. Andrew³²⁷ 18:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• When did Marriott make his recommendations to Hooper?

It's unclear. The sources say when the New London tests began, but not when they ended. The New York tests began very soon thereafter. It was sometime between October, 1919, and the end of the year. I'm trying to avoid original research in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 19:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Where did Crossley "develop and test the concept"? When?

Crossley conducted his experiments at the New London Naval Base, and I rearranged words to make that clear. The current article says that the order was issued in October 1919. I checked the source to verify that that is true. Andrew³²⁷ 18:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"The first attempt" perhaps should go into "Installation".

Good point, I moved the sentence into the next section. Andrew³²⁷ 18:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

x Problems not addressed. Pending fail. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think this section now rates a pass. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening and reception

It is a serious omission not to mention when the cable was tested and opened for use. Also, there is nothing here about the cable's reception, or subsequent usage. Everything after "Before the cable" belongs elsewhere (such as "Installation" and possibly "Description".)

x Problems not addressed. Pending fail. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of dates was a major failing of the article. I added as many dates as I could find. I also added specific information about the cable's reception in the press. Andrew³²⁷ 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better. I consider this a pending pass, but there is one major concern remaining: is there a definite source that either this cable, or a permanent replacement, was indeed "opened to commerce", and subsequently used? Any instances? Or did the initial enthusiasm fail to go forward? Crossley mentions that the Bureau of Lighthouses (Dept. of Commerce) was going to take over the system; that should be checked.

Note that any changes to navigational aids are published in Notices to Mariner's. This would also note times and conditions of availability, so it would be authoritative. Googling on that turns up one mention (http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hw28.htm#28sec15, see section 16) that "the project was transferred to the Department of Commerce, which by law was responsible for navigational aids. That Department evinced no interest in the project. The cable was removed from the channel ...." (Howeth, History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy.)

Another possibility might be to dig deeper into Hanson's business affairs. He had financial backing, the contract the Post mentions as being signed suggests some company which presumably held the patents on the amplifier, and company's fate might provide some clues as to whether any sets were sold or licensed.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Some sources refer to it being in operation, but they do not comment on how long. The article makes no claim to the cable being in use for any significant period of time. According to this unverified source, Hanson's company thrived throughout the twentieth century and is now part of a publically traded financial firm (NYSE: FNF). And Google Patents shows that the firm did indeed share the patent to the invention, although the government suppressed it until after the war. Andrew³²⁷ 21:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there was a record somewhere of that government contract. Or something mention made in connection with his financial backer. Well, not every lead pans out. If the cable had been "opened for commerce" (and subsequently closed) there certainly would have been a Notice to Mariners. There might also be "Sailing Directions". And (cross your fingers) if the cable was in operation when any of the various charts covering the Ambrose Channel were updated they would certainly show it; this would be definitive either way. But I doubt if much of this kind of stuff is on-line. There are likely print copies in archives, but digging out primary sources is more the work of historians than encyclopediasts. This is where the Baltimore Sun article might be relevant. Could you give me the text of that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Obsolescence

• What great success? (Move to previous section?)
• What advances in technology rendered it obsolete?
• What was it replaced with?

I can expand this section, but I want to be careful not to speculate too much. I know the type of system that was in use after the cable, but I do not have any sources describing the actual shutdown and replacement of the cable. Andrew³²⁷ 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

N The basic problem here may be a basic dearth of documentation. If the cable was made obsolete by newer technology (rather than cost, disuse, or failure) then they need to be mentioned (citation?). If sources only suggest or imply what happened then that can be said ("sources suggest ..."), as long as it is explained such is not definite knowledge. If such information (sources) is not at hand (?) the implication is that more research is needed; this in itself implies that the article is not ready for GA status. Pending fail. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Losing access to my saved research proved to be a blessing in disguise. Starting back at the research stage led me to sources that filled in many missing details. Still, nobody seems to know exactly when the cable shut down, and even some of the sources openly admit their ignorance on the matter. But overall, I believe that the transition from cable to wireless is now established in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 18:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be a challenge to find out when the cable was shutdown. Perhaps even more so if, after the demonstration, it was never actually "opened to commerce". (A possibility we need to keep in mind.) Hanson's complaint that it was "no longer" in use might be the most significant datum we have here.

I think you've identified the obsoleting element (technological advance): the radio-beacons. (Like I said yesterday: check that article in Radio Broadcast.) But some serious rewriting is needed. (E.g., that bit from Science is worthless; dump it.) And be very careful about synthesizing. Give me yell if you need help.

BTW, the Royal Society of Arts did not say "wireless aids..."; that is what Commander Cooper said in the RSA's journal. Please check which of his two lectures that was, as well as the date and page numbers.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the lecture number to Cooper and clarified that the Journal of the RSA made the referenced statement as opposed to the organization. I also removed much of the text regarding the obsolescence of the cable. Andrew³²⁷ 19:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. We can probably just say "In 1930 it was stated ...."; no need to mention the Journal.

It seemed to me there was some good material about the radio-beacons, so I threw some text in. Note that these "radio fog signals" were not placed properly for "blind" navigation of the Channel itself. I suspect that was done with the aid of depth sounders, but I haven't seen any source that actually says that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"It was stated" is passive voice, which is a grammatical error. I don't want to put that statement in Wikipedia's voice and I think it's better to attribute it as it is currently written in the article. Andrew³²⁷ 21:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Passive voice is often misused (wherefore English teachers wail against it), but I don't believe it is a grammatical error. On the other hand, the Journal did not make a statement about "wireless aids", that was a statement made in the journal by Cooper. But who said that isn't really of much interest to the reader except that it was by someone knowledgeable on the subject. Attributing the statement to a journal of arts is not only incorrect, but impugns the reliability of the source (what would they know about this?). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I clarified that an article made the statement as opposed to the actual journal. Andrew³²⁷ 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• The Aerial Age Weekly article is by Hanson, but about radio compasses; it does not support the inference that the Ambrose cable was ancestor to "many modern aviation guidance systems". (That may be true, but it is not supported by this source.)
• The last Popular Mechanics citation is to an advertisement (not WP:RS), which only states that "VIAGROUND" is an "achievement" of Hanson. The implication is that he has developed this product, but that hardly supports the text.

N Fail. As I study the cited sources I find that several are not reliable, or speculative, or written by Hanson himself. Furthermore, the sources (even as they are) do not support the statements made. E.g., while modern aircraft landing systems are indeed derived from the leader cable principle, there is no indication that this leader cable installation is in that line of descent. Similarly (as described in the Addendum, below) Hanson's role appears to be overstated. That most of the sources cited here were written at the time of installation rather means they would have to have been prescient to anticipate the cable's legacy. From what I have seen of the sources there is little to no basis for assessing the legacy; the claims in this section are unsupported. Unless new sources can be found, my recommendation is that this section be deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a source that directly connects aircraft autolanding systems with the Ambrose Channel cable. Your views on Hanson disagree with multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times and the LA Times, but I'm willing to remove any reference to him from the legacy section to expedite the process. I also eliminated much of the text of the legacy section and merged it with the preceding section. Andrew³²⁷ 21:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are trying too hard to establish a legacy for the Ambrose cable. Perry says only that the idea had been tried before (citing Ambrose), but was impractical, and a non-starter. That is hardly encouragement. The Current History article (which, in 1921, is rather too early to see any legacy) only cites Hanson that the system was "applicable" to aircraft. While "blind landing" systems have used some of the principles of leader cables, it does not appear that the Ambrose cable itself had any legacy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note my comment above re "Installation and opening": there is an indication that the experimental cable was removed and no permanent cable installed, that the experiment and demonstration never reached actual use. This certainly bears on the legacy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the source you posted on this page, the cable itself was physically taken to DC where it was used to guide landing aircraft. That's the clearest possible link that could be drawn between the cable and the testing of cable-based autolanding. The sources I've already cited show that using cables to guide landing aircraft was a terrible idea because of land use concerns (one mile rights-of-way are virtually impossible for airports to obtain). But the Ambrose cable was an important step in testing whether or not they worked at all, which Perry and other sources indicate. Andrew³²⁷ 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That the experimental cable was removed, and no other cable installed, shows that it failed to become operational. In that respect the Ambrose cable has no legacy. That the cable was subsequently used for aviation experiments was a convenience (they didn't have to buy a new one), not encouragement. And Perry says that (for aviation) the principle was impractical, a non-starter. I would take this as discouragement, and I am rather bewildered how you take this any other way. I have yet to see any sources showing the BLEU (or anyone else) was encouraged by the Ambrose cable; this POV is unsupported. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

References

• As noted before, several references are incomplete, and I would urge more work, though this is not required.
• At least one reference has incorrect data.
• The ISSN for Popular Mechanics is incorrect, but even the correct form is near useless in locating any instance of the article.

As proposed on the Talk page, I have revised the references, with various corrections and augmentations. Some more work is needed (discussed in the Talk page), but for the purpose of the review I believe the problems here are adequately remedied. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Andrew³²⁷ 02:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Some cleanup is needed, but this is not required for GA. I have been holding off from doing that until you are done with any rewrites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Two points to note. 1- The full citation (using the {{cite}} or {{citation}} templates) should go in the References section, not in the text. (I'll straighten those out.) 2- Any quotes should (generally) go in the text, near the material used or supported. (I would avoid the |quote= parameter.) However, your three quotes all regard Hanson, so I think you are trying to bolster the case for him. This is something normally raised on the Talk page; see discussion below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Next we should train you put in spaces, semicolons, periods in the notes (<refs>) . I straightened out several citations, but there is a little more clean-up to do. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary

I think this article is close but not quite "GA". As the work needed seems feasible, I am putting this review on hold pending corrections.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

An excellent review, thank you for the specific guidance. I will begin making the requested changes. Andrew³²⁷ 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The review has been on hold pending correction of various problems. That they are not yet fixed suggests that they are not minor, and therefore that the article is not ready for GA status. I will allow another day or two in case there are changes about to be installed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've spent so much time with this article in the past two days that I'm sure to be missing something obvious, but from here it looks to be ready for re-review. Andrew³²⁷ 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back in the saddle. And I think we're making progress. (One of my tasks today is to see how to do a strike-thru of an X.) I had some comments from yesterday, but I'll have to see what you did today to see how much is still applicable. After a look-see: a couple of comments about citations/references (see above), and I think we need some discussion re Hanson.

One possible "missing the obvious" I have wondered about is whether the cable (the second cable) that the Navy installed is the Ambrose leader cable actually used by the trade. The sources suggest that the Navy installation was experimental, with subsequent installation expected. (Crossley says [p57]: "The cable for the New York Harbor will most likely be laid ...." A subsequent cable might also explain the discrepancy in reported length.) For sure, day-to-day operations do not garner as much press as anticipatory demonstrations, but are there any reports of definite ordinary operation, beyond anticipation?

Time for me to get to work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dang, seriously out of time today. Didn't get to discuss Hanson (perhaps tomorrow?). Note the comment above in "Description". Also, look in Radio Broadcast for the article immediately preceding Wilhelm's about radio-beacons — this is much more useful than the little bit in Science. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The section of Crossley that you reference is already addressed in the Wikipedia article. He suggests that the cable will be extended beyond the light at some point in the future in order to make it more useful. That seems to have been the consensus opinion at the time, even though it most likely never happened. There are also other sources that refer to cables being in operation in the Ambrose Channel and Portsmouth at the same time. Andrew³²⁷ 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  My point exactly: Crossley (and others) anticipate what will be done. And as you said, seems to have never happened. And I wonder if there was any use of this system (do we have any definite statements of actual use?), or any subsequent installations. Do want to avoid possible future embarrassment on this point.

  Okay, you seem to be clear, so I am going add a caption, perhaps some other tweaks. More comments (below?) later on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: yesterday's edits look good. I'm done for today. Note comments elsewhere. I have a suggestion for radio beacons, but that will have to wait till late tomorrow. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: possible POV re Hanson

The article gives Hanson primary credit for the cable. This may be incorrect. I have found an article by Crossley (below) which reviews some of the applicable patents, and Hanson's patent (of 1919) is only for "application of vacuum tube ampilifer to audio frequency receiving circuits". Prior to this is the work of Sennett (1982) for use of a submerged cable for communication with light vessels, Stevenson (1892) for "navigating vessels over electrically energized cables", and others. This suggests that Hanson has been given undue weight, and thus violates WP:NPOV. This should be addressed.

• A. Crossley, February, 1921, "Piloting Vessels by Electrically Energized Cables" Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol XXXII (1):33-59. http://books.google.com/books?id=eugxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA33&

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Great source! It's not a POV issue so much as a matter of depth. The submitted version of the article didn't include much detail about the history of the concept of audio cables. Hanson played a pivotal role in the Ambrose Channel cable, but he did not come up with the idea on his own. I'm adding more information now that should clarify the issue. Andrew³²⁷ 19:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, Crossley is not a new source, but same as cited (#5) as "Radio Engineers ...." (This is exactly the kind of reason why references should be as full as possible; such substandard usage ought to be a GA fail.)

Back to Hanson. The article expressly credits him with developing and overseeing the installation of the cable (note 3), based on an unavailable LA Times story. Conway says, incidentally and without any support, that Hanson "installed a leader cable for ships in New York harbor" (p. 1930). Given that none of the other sources support this, and that Crossley provides a very detailed history of the testing and installation — without Hanson, and certainly not in any pivotal role — I suspect that the LA Times article likely overstates the contribution of the hometown son. I do not see that (at the level of detail the article has been developed) any mention of Hanson is warranted, and certainly not five times.

More appropriate would be mentioning Stevenson's work (see Conway, p. 1925). Also in Conway: mention of a similar cable laid into Portsmouth (England), and the reason for its "rapid abandonment", and an implication that the Germans had something similar. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

N Pending fail. As described above, the article's emphasis on Hanson overstates his contribution, and constitutes an NPOV violation. I have removed the mention of him in the lead paragraph, and in the initial paragraph I supplied for "Research and development" I credit him only for adaption of electronic amplifiers (as well as mentioning Sennet and Stevenson). But the multiple mentions of him in the "Legacy" section are unsupported and constitute undue weight.

It doesn't really matter to me, and I'm not enough of an historian to dig through the competing claims. Apparently Hanson invented the technology during World War One and donated it to the government, which used cables to guide friendly ships through aquatic minefields. Unfortunately that conclusion is a bit of SYNTH, so I'm not including it in the background. However, several newspapers across the country credited Hanson with inventing the cable. Here's a sampling:

LA Times (1919): "The marvelous fog tamer invented by Earl S. Hanson, a young Los Angeles scientist, is to be thoroughly tested by the Navy Department, which on Saturday, it became known here yesterday, signed a contract with the Title Insurance and Trust Company of this city, holder of the Hanson patents, thus taking an important step to make practical what has been called the greatest development in marine travel since the invention of the steam turbine. Mr. Hanson and his financial backer, Oliver P. Adams of the Title Insurance and Trust Company, are now in Washington completing arrangements for tests."

LA Times (1930): "It is an exemplification of the cable-piloting method of guiding ships through mined harbors, another of Mr. Hanson's developments, which gave service during the war."

New York Times (1919): "Earl C. Hanson, an inventor of Los Angeles, it was announced here today, had invented an auditory system for guiding ships in a fog, which, according to those who have examined the apparatus, promises to make ocean travel free from all dangers of collision due to fogs, if further tests prove as satisfactory as previous experiments."

Washington Post (1919): "In a contract signed yesterday with Earl C. Hanson, a young inventor of Los Angeles, the Navy Department took the first step to make practical the greatest development of marine travel since the invention of the steam turbine. Tests will be made at once at the naval base at New London, and later a greater test in Ambrose Channel, New York Harbor. As soon as official tests have proved satisfactory all the great ports of the United States will be equipped with the device to defy fog, hail, rain, snow, and sleet."

From Andrew³²⁷

Yes, I see the quotes. But your responsibility as an editor goes beyond mere accuracy of quotation, you must also assess the source. This involves critical reading. E.g.: the NY Times 1919 article says "it was announced" that Hanson "had invented an auditory system for guiding ships in a fog". It is not said who announced this — it could have been Hanson himself — nor are any details given of Hanson's contribution. "Auditory system" likely refers to Hanson's amplifier, and if that is the best description the reporter can provide then it is to be expected that his comprehension of the subject was not of the fullest.

Contrast this with Crossley's report. To start, he is not writing for a publication that tends towards speculation and hyperbole ("the greatest devlopment in marine travel"?!) to maintain the mass readership it needs, but for presentation before a professional association and publication in two different professional journals, one of which includes comments. We can reasonably assume he is writing to a much higher standard. Furthermore, he gives details. E.g.: when he calls this "the result of the work of many scientists, inventors and engineers..." he lists the particular individuals. For Hanson he cites two popular articles and a patent, but only for "application of vacuum tube amplifier to audio frequency circuits". Crossley's description of other contributors and their work demonstrates prior work; Hanson's failure to mention them, with the implication that he invented the whole system entirely on his own, demonstrates self-promotion. This view — that Hanson's contribution was being hyped out of proportion — is consistent with the other sources, and quite credible in that Hanson appears to have been seeking a government contract. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to exclude him from the article in the interest of advancing the GA review. But for what it's worth, he's the one who put all the pieces together and made the cable possible. If you look at the claims in his patent for an underwater navigation system, you'll find he was officially credited with finally putting the system together. Scientific American provided the most clear overview of his contribution: "It is interesting to note that the radio cable has been developed by Earl C. Hanson, a young Californian, whose radio work dates back to the early days of amateur wireless on the Pacific coast... Many attempts were made by scientists, inventors, and engineers in different parts of the world to devise a means of receiving a sufficient amount of energy to utilize this principle for guiding vessels. All except Mr. Hanson found an insuperable obstacle in the fact that the energy received in a small coil was not sufficient to actuate any known indicating device when more than a few feet from the cable. Mr. Hanson, however, discovered that when an amplifying device, such as is employed on transcontinental telephone lines, was connected in the electrical circuit between the coil and a telephone receiver or electric meter, the minute electric energy transferred wirelessly from the submarine cable to the coil could be strengthened to almost any degree necessary. This discovery made practical the system abandoned by previous investigators." Andrew³²⁷ 18:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not excluding Hanson. He made a key contribution (use of an amplifier) that made the system practical, and he is credited with that. But he did not, as the newspapers say, invent the leader cable. No matter how many newspaper (and other popular media) articles credit him with the "greatest development of marine travel since the invention of the steam turbine" (etc.), it is a demonstrated fact that the leader cable was invented prior to him. Mentioning him once or twice is adequate. Mentioning him five times (originally) with no mention of any other contributors was unbalanced (and likely self-promotion), and warranted a fail. Which, by the way, also applies to the quotes in the References section: if they are needed to support anything in the article (other than boosting Hanson) they should go into the appropriate notes in the text, not in the full citation. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the quote= parameters from the references. It's a courtesy to use them for material that is likely to be challenged, but WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that they are never necessary. Andrew³²⁷ 20:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Per your statement, I read the GA criteria again and found nothing that states that use of the quote parameter of the citation template is grounds for a fail. I am happy to keep it off of the article, but you are underestimating its usefulness. Andrew³²⁷ 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am saying that Hanson has been given undue WP:WEIGHT (that is, out of proportion to the contributions of others), and that would be GA fail. Putting the quotes (that you use to argue Hanson's significance) into the quote parameter is a just a matter of the wrong place. Putting them here, as you did, is the right place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Status update

I have re-reviewed the article, and find that the following issues still remain:

= Lead:

• No definite evidence that cable actually "went into service".

= Description and operation:

• Factual error: the left "receiver" does NOT "broadcast into the left headphone and vice versa".
• "Signal became significantly quieter" is inaccurate. (Check Crossley and revise.)

= Obsolescence and legacy:

• "The cable's great success" is shown only for the demonstration, not actual operation.
• Such evidence as has been produced does NOT show that Ambrose Channel cable encouraged the BLEU.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As before, I think this article is close to GA status, the issues above being readily resolvable. But lacking that resolution the article is not ready. And lacking any sign of progress I am about issue a fail. At that point I can contribute more directly, but I will be precluded from any subsequent GA review. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was moving over the past few days and had limited Internet access.

• I want to put the historical timeframe in the lead, so I changed it from "went into service" to when it ::was laid.
• I thought I had previously changed the right/left headset text, apologies.
• I cut "Significantly quieter".
• I avoided the question of how many ships ever used the cable by stating that it "never met with large scale commercial success". Regardless of if it ever went into commercial service, that is a safe statement to make. Andrew³²⁷ 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good progress. I revised the last paragraph of "Description and operation" and made a couple of other tweaks, and with your edits I think we're just about there. I believe we do not have a source that definitely states it "never met ...." (yeah, this is the flip side of no source saying that it did) so it would be good to qualify that with "appears". I'll run up a citation for the cable being removed. You might cite a couple of those newspaper articles to demonstrate the hype. RSN! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I clarified that it appears that it was never a commercial success. I also made it obvious that the "media hype" refers to the preceeding paragraph. Andrew³²⁷ 18:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking good. I think that addresses all the issues I identified. I am going to take a day or two to go over the article very carefully, but I think we are there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed. I corrected one problem (where it was implied that the Pequot itself laid the pilot cable under the others). Two other problems which I think are trivially corrected. First, the section heading: "Installation and opening" is not quite right, as we don't know that it was actually opened (made available for use). More accurately it should be "Installation and testing".

Second, in the following section I think it should be mentioned that it is not known to have been opened for service. We might even mention that, according to Howeth, it was transferred to the Dept. of Commerce, "which evinced no interest". This also affects the lead. Perhaps the last sentence there should be more on the order of: "The cable was laid during 1919 and 1920 and tested, but is not known to have been placed in service. By the end of the decade this technology was replaced by radio beacons." Something like that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Y Yes, this looks good. Not perfect (a few soft spots), but good. Pass! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

As I said in the review, the lead sentence seems awkward, even confusing. So I have been trying formulate an alternative. E.g.:

The Ambrose Channel pilot cable ... was a cable laid in Ambrose Channel (entrance to the Port of New York and New Jersey) that provided an audio tone for guiding ships in and out of port at times of low-visibility.

Does that seem clearer, less awkward? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would have left the "entrance to ..." bit in parentheses, as that is a subsidiary detail that is there only to give the reader a quick location of the Ambrose Channel. But not an issue.

A detail not cited in the review but still a good thing to have to entice people into reading the article: a lead image. The one image could work, but many folks like the lead illustrations to be smaller. By any chance would you have any candidates? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources.

Searching Google ("leader cable admiralty navigation") turned up two good sources: An article in Nature about the Portsmouth cable, and a book (Grant, U-boat Hunters) that describes several cables used by the German U-boats during WWI. These could be useful in providing some context for the Ambrose Channel. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Context is useful, but some of the historical background would be better used to create Underwater navigation cable. This article is about one specific example. I'm working on adding more detail, but there's no need for a history of the concept and all related engineering projects. Andrew³²⁷ 03:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we don't need a complete history of the concept, etc., but it didn't arrive out of the blue, and there should be some mention of its antecedents. I see you've added Sennett; but it seems that Stevenson is the one who developed this particular use, so he really needs a mention. Similarly, the Ambrose cable was not unique, and mention of some of the other instances, without getting into details, seems appropriate for providing the context. (And might even encourage articles on the other cables.)

By the way: have you seen the comment at Category_talk:Radio_navigation bemoaning lack of coverage of the Leader Cable concept, and offering some content? The comment is five years past, but there is an e-mail address. Perhaps that could lead to some material. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While trolling for some French sources I found an interesting article at http://amitrtlu.free.fr/histoire%20de%20TRT/sipl/sipl.htm ("... câble-guide (« leader cable » pour les Anglos-Saxons)", which says Loth invented the leader cable. Also a mention of a dispute with another fellow, but my French isn't good enough to sort out what that was about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization, and offers

I'd like propose a re-organization along the following lines.

1. The "Backgound" section to be revised, limited to the problem the cable addressed, not its development, etc.
2. The "Cable installation and operation" and "Specification" sections to be replaced with a "Description and operation" section.
3. "Research and development" retained, but renamed "Development".
4. "Opening and reception" reorganized as "Installation and opening".

Arranging the material like this would make it more coherent, more logical in presentation.

I also have an offer: to write the proposed "Description and operation" section. With the material at hand I think I could put together something decent, to which you could add such material you've found.

I make another offer: to clean up the references. However, this is subject to two caveats: 1) I do references in templates. (Much easier!) 2) I put all references in a separate section (again: easier), which implies use of harv templates in the notes. Some editors strongly dislike these (they can be a little tricky) but, again, in the long-run I find them easier than the alternatives. (This is not required for GA, but, frankly, the existing references look like crap, which devalues the goodness of the rest of the article.) Indeed, I find it easier to make these kind of changes than to do any kind of work without doing them.

So: a proposal and two offers. What is your preference? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking before fixing the references. I would really appreciate that. I'd also like it if you contributed content per your offer. I have one question: do you think it would be worth creating a new article for underwater navigation cables? Clearly there's enough coverage to make it notable. Andrew³²⁷ 01:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate having to undo work. Okay, you're good with using {{citation}} templates, and I presume (??) with {{harv}} templates as well; I'll start working on the references (off-line). You didn't mention how you feel about reorganizing, so for the moment I will proceed somewhat cautiously (like a "slow order" in railroad parlance?), being prepared to stop.

Good question. Although from my review of the sources I believe "Leader cable" would be more appropriate, as being the more established term, and encompassing the guided autonomous vehicles used in factories as well as landing systems and underwater navigation. I wonder just how much material such an article might have, but short is okay. And if there are to be other related articles describing the basic principle in its own article would avoid repetition. So I am inclining towards "yes", but check with me again in a day or two.

I should like that all this work could be done in the seven days the bot grants us (like, tomorrow? I think it does an automatic fail), but that might be overly hopeful. Note that in doing any substantial contributions I may be barred from doing a subsequent review. Time to get to work! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proceed as quickly as you want, I'm excited about the idea of this article being substantially improved! I nominated it for GA, but in no way to I want to own it. Andrew³²⁷ 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We certainly wouldn't want anyone to think I let you get by easy, eh?  :)

I just got the word: the bot isn't that automatic, we don't have to sweat the seven days. Also, working on this will preclude my reviewing any subsequent nomination, so we might as well get it right this time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the sections as proposed, except: it occurred to me that "Research and development" might be better as "Development and testing". I leave that to your discretion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Have revised the "Description" section. (Though I should tighten up the citations a bit.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to add to the Development section some verbiage that came to me when I was working on the other section. Hopefully that will be useful, but modify as needed to fit in with whatever you come up with. Also, I think this is the only place where Hanson warrants a mention, and I will remove him from the other places. (As I said before, the LA times may have been over-laudatory, as the more reliable sources barely mention him.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Notes on converting "named refs" to Harv templates.

I have extracted the citation templates from the article, revised and reformatted them, and put them into the "References" section (needs a little more work, including alphabetization), while moving the {Reflist} to the new "Notes" section. Currently the content in "Notes" largely duplicates that in "References" because full citations were originally put into the footnotes (endnotes); these can now be converted to shorten citations. At the end of "Notes" you will see two footnotes where this has been done (using {{harv}}). Note that the specific page where the material cited is found is given in the short cite. Thus each of the cites to (say) Wilhelm (Radio Broadcast) or Crossley can have a specific (and different) page number.

If you open "References" in edit mode you will find each of the references preceded with a Harv template suitable for use in the text. (Well, mostly. Several references, lacking authors, I still need to sort out.) Also included are the corresponding "named refs" from the text which should be replaced with the Harv template. When editing individual sections I find it useful to temporarily add a "{{reflist}}" at the bottom to display the notes.

There are a couple of references I didn't work too hard on as it seems the source is not useful, and might not be retained. (E.g., Hanson's articles in Popular Mechanics and Aerial Age Weekly, and the AGS article.)

Questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I converted one of the LA Times citations to show how handle quotes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointers re citation templates.

A couple of points to note. The {{citation}} template will automatically generate a suitable CITEREF if it can find a year (from "|year=" or "|date=") and author(s) last name (from "|last="). (And also the {{cite}} family of templates, but may have to add "|ref=harv".) My copious use of "|ref=CITEREFxxxx" is for unsigned articles, where we do not have the author's name; otherwise an explict CITEREF is usually unnecessary. A couple of places where you added them (Armstrong, ?) I noticed you had date discrepancies. (I believe I have aligned them to the correct date, but you may want to check.) Also, in one case (Davis) you first/last reversed. A trick I have found most helpful: when you encounter problems with citation links not working, get your browser to open the page in "source" mode, then search for the expected link. Or only part of the link, in case something is misspelled somewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)