# Talk:Ship camouflage

There's a bit of a mystery here. Where did the claim that J. Caesar painted his ships green or blue actually come from? The latin certainly has speculatoria navigia - spy ships - and these carried scaphas longarum navium, the skiffs belonging to the long ships or galleys. An English footnote (4) to XXVI says the speculatoria navigia were "light and fast sailing vessels, generally used to explore coasts, and to observe the movements of the enemy's fleet. In order to prevent being discovered, every thing about them was painted a bluish colour." The book's "notes and interpretations translated and improved by Thomas Clark", 1832. But how did he know the boats were "bluish", or as the article has, "green"?
FWIW the latin just says that JC ordered the ships and boats to be filled with soldiers, nothing about camouflage. Ideas, anyone?
Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Cushman Murphy was no slouch; he must have got his notion from somewhere. His article, "Marine camouflage", appears in a respected journal, and Murphy held the position of curator of the department of Natural Science at the Brooklyn Museum, so he is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Is there perhaps another account than the one you refer to? Possibly an account as told by the early inhabitants of Great Britain? I don't see "green" or "bluish" or even "greenish-blue" in the Latin. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I recall hearing about a Roman galley preserved in Rome until destroyed by fire during a 1943 USAAF bombing raid. Perhaps that galley preserved evidence of painting. Alternatively, perhaps artwork of the era (also potentially lost to subsequent wartime destruction) portrayed such coloration.Thewellman (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Intriguing idea, but it does not go so far as describing crew wearing matching-color clothing.
The Johannes Godvinus book, translated into English and "improved" by Thomas Clark, can be cited in the article to expand from "green" to "green or bluish". We can honor both sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, yes, but these people however respected may have been repeating hearsay.  It's fine to say "these 18th/19th century folks said it", but quite another to say "which proves that Caesar said it", when we can't find evidence of that.
By the way, do you have the actual words written by Robert Cushman Murphy on the matter? Are there any footnotes or endnotes there? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Murphy wrote no clarifications or notes that I can find. He wrote, "When Julius Caesar sent his patrol boats (speculatoria navigia) along the coast of Britain, they were painted green and their crews wore clothing of the same color. This prophetic incident, referred to in the fourth book of the Gallic Wars, is, so far as I have been able to determine, the first record in history of marine camouflage." "Marine Camouflage", The Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, January 1919, Vol. VI, No. 1, pp. 35–53. Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can't find "green", "blue" or "bluish" in Caesar (neat inter-lined translation, handy). The one thing I have found is a bit disappointing:
ACT III: The Poop of a Lesbian Merchantman of the First Century B.C.
On each side, the bulwark of a ship, painted green.
... At back of stage, the poop-rail, also painted green.
from The Tragedy of Pompey the Great, 1910, by John Masefield (1878-1967).
This could well have influenced Murphy. Caesar of course occurs in Masefield's Pompey, and may by conversational garble have led to the belief that green ships are described in Caesar. Which however does NOT explain Thomas Clark's similar "bluish" beliefs in 1832. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we've properly "bottomed this out". The situation wrt Caesar is the following: 1) There is no evidence that Caesar actually wrote he had painted his ships green or blue. 2) Caesar did use speculatoria navigia and this term may well mean "reconnaissance boats", which does not prove they were actually camouflaged. 3) Nearly 2000 years later, Robert Cushman Murphy asserts, without citing any sources, that Caesar had green boats.  I think we must in these circumstances say that "Murphy asserted that Caesar ..." rather than simply claiming Caesar did it. I am accordingly modifying the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can characterize Murphy's assertion as being "traditional" as nobody before or after him is known to have a agreed.
Minor point: Murphy did cite his source as the fourth book of the Gallic Wars. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. The 'trad' was just an attempt to say "we don't have any evidence to believe this, but". Murphy may have SAID Caesar book 4, which of course contains the speculatoria navigia quote, but unfortunately it doesn't also say green, blue or indeed any other colour, so we'd have given him a good WP:TROUTing for misusing his sources. Ahem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've been WP:BOLD and deleted this reference to Caesar. I've looked in Suetonius on the lives of the Casesars, and in Strabo's Geography, written near Caesar's time, and nothing there about camouflaging. Caesar was the one writing at the time and he doesn't mention it. As Robert Cushman Murphy's reference is wrong, it needs to be removed until someone comes up with a reliable source.
asnac (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the offending paragraph:
"Ship camouflage may date back to the years 56–54 BC during the Gallic Wars, when Julius Caesar sent his speculatoria navigia (scout ships) to gather intelligence along the coast of Britain. According to Robert Cushman Murphy, writing in 1917, the ships were painted entirely in green, their crews dressed in green.  However, Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War does not mention any colour for the ships."
As you know I basically agree that we can't assert that Caesar did something that isn't recorded in his or any contemporary writings. But we can say there is a body of writings from the 19th century that for some unknown reason claims Caesar did, if only to refute further argument about the first origins of ship camouflage. Thoughts? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Then aren't we moving away from the history of ship camouflage into the territory of what people thought was the history of ship camouflage? In RCM's day history did not require as rigorous sourcing as now: the whole Caesar + green ships could be the equivalent of Vikings having horns on their helmets: everyone thought they did, no one had any real idea of where the concept came from, but it was handed down as fact even though wrong. I've had a good look around likely primary and modern secondary sources and I haven't found any indication outside these early secondary sources that JC concealed his ships in this way. That's why, till we are sure it's right, I suggest it's best kept on the Talk page as a matter for worthy investigation. asnac (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it is better to tell the reader what past scholars were thinking, but also say that the fourth book of the Gallic Wars does not confirm Murphy's conclusion. This is preferable to deleting the bit and pretending that such thinking never existed. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
More sources:
In the 4th century, Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus wrote the following in his Epitoma Rei Militaria (IV, 37): Ne tamen exploratiae naves candore prodantur, colore veneto, qui marinis est fluctibus similis, vela tinguntur et funes, cera etiam, qua ungere solent naves, inficitur. Nautae quoque vel milites Venetam vestem induunt, ut non solum per noctem, sed etiam per diem facilius lateant explorantes. "Lest exploration ships reveal themselves in brightness, the sails and ropes are dyed Venetian blue, also the wax in which hulls are smeared, which is the color of the sea. The soldiers and sailors also wear Venetian blue clothing by night and by day for concealment while scouting." Archaeological illustrator Graham Sumner elaborates that the wax was a covering for the ship's planks to help keep them seaworthy. Such waxes were used by Egyptian, Greek and Roman vessels, and were sometimes pigmented. Sumner says that the "sailors and marines" aboard these small Roman scout ships wore Venetian blue (sea-green) uniforms as camouflage. Roman Military Clothing, AD 200–400, Volume II. ISBN 1841765597
Science writer and museum director Waldemar Kaempffert wrote an article for Popular Science in 1919: "Fighting the U-Boat with Paint: How American and English artists taught sailors to dazzle the U-Boat". Kaempffert says "Julius Caesar knew the value of low visibility; for he gave orders that the ships that bore him to Britain should be painted green and that his sailors should wear green. The Romans camouflaged their ships when they went out to suppress troublesome Mediterranean pirates. And the seafaring Danes, too, long before the Christian era, tied boughs to their masts and lurked in forest-fringed bays to mislead their naval foes."
Classicist Lionel Casson writes on page 235 in Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World that sails were sometimes colored in ancient times. A green or blue color might be used for camouflage. His reference is Vegetius 4-37 quoted above. On pages 211–212 Casson discusses how wax was melted to the consistency of paint so that it could be brushed onto a ship's hull. The wax could be tinted "the same shade as the sea" for camouflage, per Vegetius. Casson also cites Pliny, Ovid and Philostratus. The latter gent says that ancient pirate ships were colored blue-gray for camouflage.
Cecil Torr wrote about this stuff 'way back in 1895: Ancient Ships
In Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic war, page 336, Notes on the Fourth Book in the 1845 Harper & Brothers edition, Vegetius is quoted as the source for "greenish blue" painted ships, with sails and cordage of the same hue, and also the clothing of the men on board. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What fun, well found. So Murphy had muddled his sources... should have named his <ref name=Vegetius> tags to avoid a trouting... delighted the mystery is solved. Sounds as if Kaempffert was just copying Murphy, however. Should've googled to check his Caesar.....Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge a major part of this article focuses on United States practices during the world wars; but that focus may be appropriate.  Ship camouflage was impractical until paint chemistry evolved to allow a broad range of pigments within binders suitable for prolonged exposure to marine conditions; and remained crude until second world war operational research.  Camouflage declined in importance with widespread availability of RADAR.  The time window of sophisticated ship camouflage (as opposed to more recent boat camouflage) corresponds to the period when the United States operated a majority of world's warships.  Although the Commonwealth of Nations operated a significant number of ships through the period, photographic evidence suggests painting was relatively low among logistics and operational priorities; and camouflage was often applied in US shipyards.Thewellman (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Or then again, it might just be disproportional: someone has listed the (administratively) conveniently numbered US Navy measures with a paragraph on each. In the Royal Navy and the British Merchant Navy, each ship had an individually developed "measure" to prevent the enemy building up knowledge of what each pattern meant. A list would therefore be very large, and would essentially match the list of ships in what was, ahem, quite a large fleet at the time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the number of camouflaged Commonwealth ships warrants extensive attention in this article, but the unique patterns executed by individual captains under variable supply situations and operational circumstances might be better covered in the individual ship articles.  I have expanded the RN section with a generalized discussion of the more widely embraced camouflage measures. My references were somewhat vague as to official Admiralty names and patterns; and I would encourage input by individuals with access to more definitive references.Thewellman (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


### Process for Admiralty "schemes" for ships
Good. The wording does somewhat imply that ships' captains effectively chose colour schemes (which is what the Admiralty called "measures", by the way), and to an extent this may have been what happened. However we do know that the Admiralty researched and issued a large number of designs under Norman Wilkinson; models were made and painted (often by women artists) and tested in a laboratory by viewing through a periscope, so this was certainly a formal process. There are photographs of 8 such models on pp 76-77 of Newark 2007. with a description of the process Newark p78. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I should have said, "in the First World War". Dazzle was much less common in the Royal Navy in WWII and it was also far less formally planned. The article's history is divided by period and then by nation, which is reasonable; however, looking at the WWI period, it's clear that a lot of the imbalance is towards the later period (recentism, perhaps). I'll add a bit on WWI now; there's room for a lot more text and images of the earlier period. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the first world war section might be enlarged, but I suspect between the wars advances in paint pigments and second world war emphasis on operational research made second world war camouflage a significantly more complex subject. Wilkinson again suggested dazzle camouflage during the early part of the second world war, but the Admiralty rejected his ideas because evaluation of first world war experience between the wars had produced an unfavorable impression of dazzle camouflage. It appears the second world war Admiralty camouflage section focused on multi-color patterns rather than single color schemes like US measures 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, and 23; although I have been unable to find that conclusion in print. I'm of the opinion white was originally selected as a ship color to minimize solar heating, but cleanliness was a problem because of soot production in the boilers.  Gray ships looked tidier and had camouflage advantages; but the selection of shade may have been left to individual fleet commanders because of paint supply issues.  As documented by article photographs, US had multiple camouflage designs within individual measures; and the same design was applied to multiple ships and different ship types. Those decisions appear to have been made by BuShips rather than by operational commands.Thewellman (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Most Royal Navy ships in the second world war had plain sea-grey, despite odd trials by Scott etc. The use of white had been advocated by Thayer who believed it was the hardest colour to see at night ... mmm, odd bloke. I do think the first world war coverage is still very light. On the multi-colour schemes I guess we'll have to visit the Imperial War Museum as few books seem to say much; I seem to recall the Science Museum (London) also had a lot of ship models, maybe some had dazzle schemes. And by the way, all 8 of the models on pp76-77 of Newark make use of black, white and one or two shades of blue-grey. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It is common to consider only direct lighting of the moon or a searchlight, but Scott explained night conditions in terms of direct and indirect lighting. Although white paint absorbs less and reflects more light than a dark paint, white paint cannot reflect more light than shines on it, and therefore cannot look whiter than the main source of light. Under indirect lighting, the source of light is the general paleness of the sky. On cloudy days or nights and on clear starlit nights, white paint reflects similar light intensity as the sky behind it. White camouflage is effective on all dark nights, and all overcast moonlit nights, as well as on grey days.  On bright moonlit nights white is a disadvantage in the “down moon” half of the sky, but better than a dark ship when silhouetted against the “up moon” side of the sky from which U-boats typically approached convoys.Thewellman (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
which of course leads to counter-illumination camouflage, rather than thoughts about solar heating. What we need here is sources, obviously, and material on the relevant periods. Clearly we need more on Thayer, Wilkinson and WWI. On WWII we need a general section on the goals of ship cam and much less on the details of measure#321 - I'm coming to the view that the List of US Second World War ship camouflage measures (etc) should be separate article(s)....... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the US bias tag from the article because US and UK coverage is about equal at this point. The article might benefit from additional description of Axis or Central Powers shipping if comparably focused effort can be documented. I don't see much reason to break out additional articles as long as this article remains in the vicinity of 30K.Thewellman (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


### What the article should cover
Mmm. I'm not so sure. UK coverage is somewhat improved - I've just added a short bit on Kerr, a key figure by the way, if a troubled one (the fact that the UK pioneer of ship cam was absent the article may tell us something about comprehensiveness). Probably also right that "all other navies and nations" are conspicuously missing, so the US systemic bias (more Wikipedians, more documentation, accessible language) most likely remains.
The other aspect of balance is the strong emphasis on lists of measures (yeah, somewhat list-like) and the only recent additions of "theory" - history, politics, biography, research (zoology et al), engineering - that should be the meat of the article. I think everyone can agree that there's room for a lot more on those topics to counter the systemic bias towards lists of (pretty picture, description of measure)n. Then perhaps your hint that the article can grow beyond "30K" and the lists be decently hived off can be taken up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the bias tag (sorry, it was a bit of a driveby) - While the additional information is good, the article seems to be becoming a series of lists - would they be better split off to separate articles with this one staying more paragraph based and descriptive? (Hohum @) 14:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I really should have read all the previous comments - I see that is already being suggested. (Hohum @) 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits have attempted to make the article look less listy. I'm afraid I'm not at all sure this is helping... it's still listing a lot of measures, but it's now more difficult to find Measure N+1, i.e. the info is the same as before but less accessible, harder to read. If anything, the change has illustrated my earlier remark, that the article needs to be split. I see no reason to have a US list, a UK list, an Others list: one "List of ship camouflage measures" will do nicely, I believe. That will relieve the pressure to make the current material appear texty when frankly much of it really isn't. And it will spur us on to source and write a bit more of the fascinating history of this subject, rather than describing some of the more obvious outcomes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty understanding the article outline you have in mind. It seems to me the subject includes at least three separate types of camouflage. One would be deception, such as painting on a false bow wave or gun ports, and perhaps dating back to Norse longships disguised as sea monsters. Another would be concealment, with coloration designed to blend with sea and/or sky. Another would be the dazzle and disruption schemes attempting to obscure target angle, range and identification to reduce effectiveness of fire-control solutions.  The last appears to date within two fairly short periods of the early 20th century.  Following pioneering RN measures during the first world war, USN interest would seem to have started earlier and lasted about twice as long for the second world war. Wartime focus appears to have evolved toward at least four separate objectives. One was to confuse submarine torpedo fire control. Another was to conceal ships from aircraft observation in the Pacific and Mediterranean. Another was to conceal convoy escorts from U-boats in the North Atlantic. Another was to confuse optical rangefinders. Present chronological article organization creates potentially confusing overlap of the various camouflage types and objectives. These camouflage types and objectives might be covered with description of schemes and measures of various navies operational in appropriate locations. The numerical American measures are a convenient shorthand for describing approaches to either the above camouflage types or objectives, and listing makes a convenient point of reference. The numerical sequence has another advantage in providing a chronological clue with single-digit measures designed in the 1930s, the 20 series designed in 1942, and the 30 series designed in 1943. I'm having difficulty understanding the benefit to separating the list from this article, and I don't feel the list would inappropriately bias article coverage of the subject.Thewellman (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
When I said "more paragraph based and descriptive" - I meant flowing text which described the various methods of camouflage with some examples. Not the same list of examples all squashed into a paragraph. The lists should be in their own list articles and linked, imo. (Hohum @) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(@Thewellman) - The article outline will be based on what it is now, with (as you suggest) a greatly strengthened discussion of the history and purposes of ship camouflage, and a greatly slimmed-down set of "measures" with a "further:List of .... measures" link. Deception, concealment, dazzle, disruption, the prototyping of infrared camouflage, counter-illumination - all these are plainly grist to our mill, and their extended discussion here will much improve the article. Vikings, the history of Kerr and Churchill and Wilkinson in the First World War, the Japanese approach if we can source it, these are all highly relevant. I don't at all agree that "numerical American measures are a convenient shorthand" - they could be that to experts but to everyone else, they are a sizeable list of non-mnemonic variants. The approaches are what need to be discussed. The hope that "types and objectives might be covered with description of schemes and measures" needs to be tempered with the knowledge that camouflage was often not very scientific so the correspondence between objectives and outputs was often quite vague: good examples are quite hard to find.
On the other hand "listing makes a convenient point of reference" - yes indeed, in a List, and your 1930s, 1942 and 1943 series will be ideal for organizing that list. The list article will be divided into sections by time period (and perhaps also by nation), and each entry will have a measure/scheme, a description, and an image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A recent edit has sacrificed explanation of the advantages of various colors apparently because the variations did not fit neatly within the chronological article structure.  I question if a rigid chronological format is an appropriate way to describe the various camouflage methods and objectives described above. A chronological format may be useful for something like dazzle camouflage, which evolved within a few decades of the early 20th century to meet the specific objective of confusing submarine torpedo fire control; but is less effective for describing the various types of deceptive camouflage employed over several centuries.  Greys, blues, greens and (to a lesser extent) pinks have been used in various shades and manners which might be best discussed outside of the chronological format.  I suggest retaining the chronological format within a History section briefly mentioning specific applications or advances described in more detail in other sections.Thewellman (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, this is quite a tricky one. I feel we should generally be chronological - this is fundamentally a history article - and we wouldn't want to merge modern, Roman, and 18th century ideas (in that order) into one paragraph now, would we? That says to me that there could well be a paragraph (or section) called, say, "Second World War thinking on anti-submarine colors" (or whatever) which would do just as you say above. Wouldn't it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise that this is fundamentally a history article; and subsections within a History section would avoid any need to merge historically unique or significant practices of various eras into a single paragraph. Ship camouflage has some significant differences from other types of camouflage because of the size of the objects being camouflaged and the uniformity of the background. The assumed decline in the importance of visible wavelengths for detection and identification may be invalidated in situations of low-tech piracy or when use of active search RADAR may reveal the searcher and make the searcher vulnerable to RADAR homing weapons.  Decisions about relative advantages of different pigments have varied over time, and I feel these decisions might better be compared at a single location, rather than scattered about in ways that may confuse underlying principles.Thewellman (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


### Principles of ship camouflage
Yes, that may be necessary, and we could have a section after the lead ("Principles", perhaps) to discuss them. I'd point out that the decline began mid-20th century (Cott 1940 mentions infrared photography) so the discussion does relate to a particular period.
As to whether this is fundamentally history, I can see there are 2 sides to this one. It fits nicely into a 3-part historical structure: old - 20th century wars - new; and at the moment the article is overwhelmingly 20th century; but yes, you have a point, now we've moved the list of measures out, we can begin to see that there are themes there which persist, and for which in some cases we have (right now) almost nothing in the article. Those themes would be the material for a Principles section. I guess they might include

crypsis for visible light
non-crypsis for visible light - dazzle to deceive aim, disguise (mimesis) as other class of ship
crypsis in infrared and other wavelengths (radar stealth), whether visible camouflage is obsolete
The broader goals - the relationship of camouflage to military deception would also be worth a mention (or perhaps that's yet another new section).  Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


### Overlap with Dazzle camouflage
By the way, while we've been working on this and other camouflage articles, it's probably time to do something about the overlap with Dazzle camouflage which we've rather overlooked (ok, forgotten). It provides good coverage of the razzle-dazzle aspect of 20th century ship camouflage.
Perhaps we should therefore ensure that 'Ship camouflage' takes a broader view with much reduced coverage of dazzle. We already have a broader coverage of history, so the focus must be on the broader coverage of themes (crypsis, mimesis, non-visible wavelengths, ...). Kind of fits into the discussion above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur the dazzle camouflage article would be the most appropriate location for detailed explanation of objectives, development and variations, with links in this article.  I would value opinions as to whether disruptive camouflage should also be included within the dazzle camouflage article as an evolution of dazzle camouflage for similar objectives.Thewellman (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"Disruptive" is not used consistently in the literature. The term properly belongs to Hugh Cott, and he defines it in Adaptive Coloration in Animals as camouflage that destroys the "continuity of surface, bounded by a specific contour or outline, which chiefly enables us to recognize any object with whose shape we are familiar." and he goes on "for effective concealment, it is essential that the tell-tale appearance of form should be destroyed." (p48) This is the way that many moths, animals like the Ptarmigan, and uniform textiles like Disruptive Pattern Material work. The trouble is that "dazzle" sought sometimes to achieve deception - e.g. the false bow wave; sometimes to confuse range- and direction-finding of rangefinder and periscope users; sometimes apparently simply to blend into a background of blue water, of fog, or of the night sky; and sometimes, it seems, also to disrupt ship outlines. Since the people writing about all this (civil and military, long ago and recently) generally have not studied Cott, they broadly use all the words they've heard of to mean, with Alice, whatever they want them to mean. I'd advise treating disruption-of-outlines as a specific goal of some kinds of camouflage. "Razzle-dazzle" in the first world war usually does not attempt disruption; in the second world war measures, I think it was sometimes attempted, and sometimes in a confused way along with conflicting goals including blending into the background. In the dazzle article, we should talk about disruption as little as possible, and then only very carefully. Hope this helps... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ship camouflage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Pick a citation style and standarize the footnotes
Formatted refs as Surname, Forename (Date). Sources used repeatedly are listed in full in 'Sources' and referenced with Surname Date, Pages.
Still not real thrilled with a mix of short and full citations - it would be best to use only one or the other. I recommend using the {{sfn}} templates.
I've sfn-ed all the short form refs; this is already beyond the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:CITEVAR is broader than simply GA criteria - it's a general expectation. And WP:FNNR, which is in the GA criteria, specifically references CITEVAR. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Byzantine labyrinth of rules, but I went the extra mile anyway. I think you'll see that everything is now reffed and navigable either to a web page or where appropriate to a book in the list of (reused) sources, which looks exceptionally tidy to me! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed a byzantine place, but I think you're missing the point. This, for example, should be converted to a short cite, to match the rest. There are also harv errors in the templates that now need to be sorted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the harvs. My point on Sumner is that it's only used once so I can't see the point of making people navigate from it, nothing is being gained by the extra jump. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There are still a couple of harv errors in the Sources section - if there are no citations pointing to a ref, just remove the |ref=harv line from the template.
I have (I believe) done that now.
There are a couple more that popped in when you converted the refs, but I'm going to pass this now on the assumption that you'll handle those. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you could call this a case of form over function - even in the case of a reference being used once, it's standard practice to use a short cite if the rest of the citations are short cites (see for instance one of my recent GAs and these others from other editors). Parsecboy (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed. OK, I've formatted all the books as sfns. Hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Does the Eastman citation (the first para of the Early Modern section) actually cover the first couple of lines? Based on the title, I'm guessing that it actually only covers the bit on Haraden
It's all from Eastman.
I'd recommend going through old periodicals like this one that have articles on naval camouflage - they can be quite useful.
Openly published unofficial wartime (that one's 1918) magazine pieces essentially can't contain any real secrets; they can be pure opinion, guesses, or based on old ideas from people like Thayer who were trying to persuade the US Navy / Admiralty, or propaganda.
There's no reason for any of it to have been classified - in any event, there are also USN and RN publications available.
Not going to hold up the review on this point, but it's something I'd want to see considered for A-class/FA
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article seems to be mostly weighted to US and UK practices - it would be helpful to expand the other sections, particularly with non-European navies - for instance, see this photo of a Japanese aircraft carrier with its deck painted so it appears to be a battleship (and see for instance here for more on Japanese camouflage practices. You might also discuss German practices in greater depth - for example, Bismarck originally wore the Baltic scheme (complete with large swastikas on the deck for aerial recognition), which was painted over prior to her Atlantic sortie.
Added the improvised night cam for Japanese battleships from Stille 2012. Not much that is reliable seems to have been written on the other navies, and I haven't found any indication of different principles in these cases. Drawing any sort of written conclusions from images is likely to be treated as WP:OR, which is a pity as images are (as you've found) the main record of camouflage in most navies. We have therefore to be very cautious. The reason for more coverage of US and UK practices is not simply that more is written, and in English (I read French, German, and Italian, by the way), but that these large and active navies were highly innovative.
The bit on late-war camouflage to hide the ships from bombers should be added as well.
Done.
As for the rest, no, I wasn't suggesting you make additions solely based on pictures - the images were simply to point you in the right direction. All of these examples (and probably more) have been covered in reliable sources - see for instance von-Müllenheim-Rechberg's history of Bismarck, which references both the Baltic scheme and the gray scheme adopted for the Atlantic sortie. Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 has information on German paint schemes from the 1860s through WWII (which, for instance, can be used to cite when they switched from Victorian paint schemes to "modern" gray ones as per the comment below).
OK. I've added a fair amount on German WWI and WWII ships. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
What you added on the German WWI ships reminded me of the auxiliary commerce raiders, which were generally disguised as neutral ships - this should cover the WWI ships and this should cover the WWII ships.
Done.
Do you have those two refs to hand, with brief quotes for me to paraphrase? It would save a lot of time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, though it'll have to wait until tonight. There are probably other references for the Bismarck example though.
I've described other ships in some detail from other sources, and Bismarck from Asmussen.
This is probably fine now for GA, but I'd like to see these sections expanded for A-class/FA
In a similar vein, the shift to gray schemes took place in all navies in the early 1900s, not just the RN - you could also make a point about the USN dropping the "white and buff" of the Great White Fleet in favor of gray schemes.
Article already mentions this for other navies; USN and Great White Fleet added, thankyou.
Generally speaking, the Early Modern period goes from 1500 to 1800 - you might just merge the first two sections together, since the meat of the topic (i.e., systematized camouflage use on a large scale) is during the world wars.
Yes, ok. Grouped them in a 'Precursors' section, effectively the prehistory of the topic.
The British and Americans experimented with fitting baffles to masts and yards during WWI to confuse enemy rangefinders - this should be mentioned. These are referenced in Burt's British Battleships of World War I (see for instance HMS Emperor of India), and I seem to think Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History mentions them for the American ships.
Done.
Nevermind on Friedman - he was talking about different kinds of baffles.
It would probably be worthwhile to cover camouflage use in coastal/riverine forces, since it would differ significantly from high-seas forces
Done.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The article is fairly image heavy, which is understandable, but it might be wise to move many of the images to galleries at the bottom of each section.
Done.
File:HMS London (1899) as minelayer May 1918.jpg - needs a source
The image is stated as unattributed, probably Royal Navy: in fact it must have been taken by the Royal Navy, given that it is at sea in wartime, so the PD license is correct.
Yes, but we still need a source.
Ok, removed; found HMT Aquitania, suitably sourced, as an alternative.
Looks fine to me.
File:Nymphe Norwegian harbour.jpg - license for this is problematic, as it is obviously not the work of a member of USN
It may well be fine as German military photos of WWII are also PD, but I've hidden it anyway.
No, most German photos from WWII are still copyrighted in Germany.
It's gone anyhow. The BundesArchiv has given a pile of Images to Commons, but I can't see a suitable ship just now.
There's these two of Tirpitz.
Added one of them.
File:MAScamo.jpg - needs a source
None is available beyond what is stated. It appears to be valid for Commons.
It needs a source - just because it's hosted on Commons does not mean it's fine, copyright-wise.
Ok, removed.
There are a few interesting images you might like to include in a gallery for the WWI section - see for instance File:USS Nebraska experimental camouflage.tiff, File:USS New Jersey (BB-16) in camouflage coat, 1918 edit.jpg (this one's a Featured Picture, btw), File:HMS Argus (1917).jpg - I'd probably move the image of USS Shawmut down to the gallery, as it seems odd to illustrate the section on the RN with a USN warship.
Just a reminder on this last point - not a requirement of course, just some other options to consider. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we're pretty much there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks for the thorough review. It's interesting for a natural history editor to see how the other sort of history works. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)