Talk:Low-frequency radio range

Low-frequency radio range 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 27, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that airline pilots in the '30s and '40s flew with their ears when visibility was poor?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Low Frequency radio range/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments:

Citations are not supposed to be in the lead as it is supposed to be a summary of the article.
- I can remove them, but I am waiting for your response as that seems to contradict WP:LEADCITE. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, citations are only supposed to be in the lead for the points you mentioned or if that lead information is unique in the entire article. The lead is meant to be a summary of what is to come in the article. I have been told this in past GAN's. Please explain your reasoning of why you placed citations in the lead. Dough4872 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is what WP:LEADCITE says: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. A lot of people (myself included) often only read the lead, and their main use of WP is to find sources. The material presented is not patently obvious to an average person, like "the sky is blue", and therefore may potentially be challenged. And because the material may be challenged, it requires citations, which I have supplied. Crum375 (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, there are 2 two-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged with other paragraphs?
- Fixed that by moving one short one into the body. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "LFR remained as the main radio navigation system in the U.S. and other countries until it was gradually replaced by the much-improved VHF-based VOR technology, starting in the 1950s."
- Done. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Approaches section is uncited. Can citations be added?
- Done. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "Modern ADF receivers are small, low cost and easy to operate, and the NDB remains today as a supplement and backup to VOR and GPS navigation, although it is gradually being phased out."
- Done. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Its eventual replacement, the VHF band VOR navigation system, was virtually immune to interference, had 360 course directions per station, had a visual "on course" indicator, and was far easier to use." is very fragmented and needs to be reworded.
- Broke up and reworded. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "Consequently, when the VOR system became available in the early 1950s its acceptance was rapid, and within a decade the LFR was mostly phased out. VOR itself is gradually being phased out today in favor of the far superior Global Positioning System (GPS)."
- Done. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for "The following are simulated sounds for the Silver Lake LFR. The range station — located about 10 miles north of Baker, California — would preempt the navigational signals and transmit its Morse code identifier ("RL") every 30 seconds. Pilots would listen to and navigate by these sounds for hours while flying. Actual sounds contained static, interference and other distortions, not reproduced by the simulation."
- Done. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. It is very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will now pass the article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified your text to indicate that L/MF airways are still in use as of 2009 - something that surprised me, but I just discovered it while taking an IFR flight review. There is still at least one LF/MF airway in the continental US (AR3, off the No. Carolina coast) and evidently a couple of dozen in Alaska. I am not clear whether they're still using Adcock Range ground equipment; AR3 appears to be based on an NDB. Excellent article in other respects! 69.225.43.165 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) John D. Ruley (jruley@ainet.com)[reply]

low frequency lowercase according to MOS and many/most sources

Just because some spell the common noun "low frequency" and its adjective uppercase does not mean we should do that here. On the contrary, it should definitely be lowercase because MOS says Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization. MOS goes on here and here to say that the source or explanation of an acronym should not be uppercase (unless it's a proper noun). The terms "low frequency" is lowercase in most other Wikipedia articles like low frequency and low-frequency oscillation and also the names of some other articles that incorrectly switch to uppercase in the article itself.

Most importantly, "low frequency" should be lowercase because it's also lowercase in many (and perhaps most) carefully edited publications and also in this article's sources and in major dictionaries:

http://www.atcmuseum.org/navigation/nav_sis/nav_sis_lfr.asp

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1995/4/1995_4_54.shtml

http://www.aerofiles.com/adcock-range.html

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/2-2-L.htm

http://www.aviator.edu/129/section.aspx/66/aviation-abbreviations-that-every-flight-school-student-needs-to-know

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/low%20frequency

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/low+frequency

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lowfrequency?view=uk --Espoo (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Low-frequency radio range. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622230406/http://www.atcmuseum.org:80/navigation/nav_sis/nav_sis_lfr.asp to http://www.atcmuseum.org/navigation/nav_sis/nav_sis_lfr.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low-frequency radio range. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624211236/http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]