Talk:Double-tuned amplifier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 23W, thanks for reviewing. I'll try to respond promptly to any issues that are raised. Regards, SpinningSpark 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Judging from the number of characters in the body, the lead should be shortened to one or two paragraphs (WP:LEADLENGTH).
Don't know if this is standard for technically-dense articles or what, but it would be nice to have references for every paragraph in the typical circuit section. (I can understand having the one in the analysis section, what with all the diagrams.)

That's all I have. Well done. Can't say I'm an expert at signal processing, but the prose is really nice, and it's probably up to snuff with WP:TECHCONTENT guidelines. On hold for 14 days. 23W 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the lead length, I'm not seeing in the guideline where it says this lead is too long; it meets the criterion of "no longer than four paragraphs" by only having three paragraphs. In any case, arbitrary rules are not usually helpful. The first paragraph introduces and defines the subject. The second covers the central importance of strength of coupling to this design. The third paragraph places this tuning scheme in its proper context compared to other tuning schemes. Are you suggesting that one of these areas should not be covered in the lead?

Suppose not; I'll keep this in mind.

On the description of the typical circuit, the reference is placed before the final paragraph simply because that part is not found in the source. The approach I have taken with this description is to highlight the parts that differ from a standard common emitter amplifier circuit. Those readers with a little electronics knowledge may well have come across the basic circuit but struggle to relate it to this circuit. The source, in fact, does not even mention that it is a common emitter circuit, let alone describe that in detail. Typical of textbooks, it makes the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the more basic material and leaps straight in to discussing the relevant parts of the circuit (those parts redrawn in the analysis section) relating to tuning. So the choices for a way forward are 1) delete most of the description and do a disservice to our readers by making the circuit less understandable, 2) indulge in a little WP:SYNTH and add a reference for a basic CE amp in order to get the expected number of little blue numbers, or 3) take the view that this material is "not likely to be challenged" and thus does not require a ref. I suggest the 3rd option, the very fact that the source does not think it necessary to point out to students the function of the various bias components or the nature of the basic circuit topology shows that what I have written will be instantly obvious to anyone "skilled in the art". WP:V does not require, nor has it ever required, that every statement carry a reference. I know that it has become habitual for reviewers to ask for that, but it is simply not a necessary part of the requirements. SpinningSpark 21:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying all this. I'll try to keep both points in mind for reviewing more technical articles. Passing now, since a second through showed no errors. 23W 02:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing. I know its hard to review specialist articles, but don't let that stop you raising things that seem to be an issue in the future; technical writers are just as capable of writing rubbish as anyone else. SpinningSpark 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]