Talk:First World War glass–rubber exchange
Latest comment: 6 months ago by 2A00:23C8:6606:6A01:491C:CDD1:8290:4758 in topic "US binoculars unsatisfactory": Bausch and Lomb or Crown Optical ?
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First World War glass–rubber exchange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from First World War glass–rubber exchange appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
Lead - who proposed this deal?
editThe lead says "An exchange of rubber for optical glass was proposed by Britain and Germany during the First World War.". Yet the article body seems to say it was only the British that made the proposal. (Hohum @) 13:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"US binoculars unsatisfactory": Bausch and Lomb or Crown Optical ?
editAre we sure "an offer of binoculars from Bausch & Lomb was rejected due to an unsatisfactory design" ? I have found a reliable source saying it was 'Unsatisfactory binoculars supplied by Crown Optical Company of America'.
Of course, both manufacturers may have been rejected, but many Bausch & Lomb binoculars were used in WW1, marked as 'S.1', the highest standard.
Citation needed? 2A00:23C8:6606:6A01:491C:CDD1:8290:4758 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)