Milestone-Proposal talk:Hollow dielectric beam waveguide of sub-millimeter wavelength range, 1966

From IEEE Milestones Wiki

Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.

Advocates’ Checklist

  1. Is proposal for an achievement rather than for a person?
  2. Was proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
  3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature?
  4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
  5. Is proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. If the advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
  6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
  7. Is proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
  8. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
  9. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
  10. Scientific and technical units correct? (e.g. km, mm, hertz, etc.) Are acronyms correct and properly upperercased or lowercased?
  11. Date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines?,_Plaque_Locations

Reviewers’ Checklist

  1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
  2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
  3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
  4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log

Submitted date:
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Still waiting for supporting materials -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The historical significance and obstacles section is still missing, as are the references.

Possible Re-Wording -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: These wordsmithing suggestions are based solely on milestone style guidelines and ongoing discussions with the History Committee. They are not based on factual information.

Suggested new text: A pioneering achievement in the national development of the near-millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelength ranges occurred at the Department of Quasioptics of the Institute of Radio-Physics and Electronics NASU in 1966 with the design of the hollow dielectric beam waveguide and a kit of associated components. This work laid foundation for the original transmission-line technology and measuring techniques, with main application in hot plasma diagnostics in the Tokamak nuclear fusion machines. This eliminated the passive voice and references to individuals (rather than the technical achievement).