Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too overly focused on the individual incarnations. There is way too much text dedicated to this section, much of which is repeated in the Design and power and Construction sections.
The article is a highly technical article which reads better as from an AV engineering textbook. I am, by trade, both an IT professional and an AV engineer, and this article was overly technical by my standards. I don't think the average reader would be able to understand 80+% of the text. Read through my comments here and below. Make changes, or responses. Let me know and we can look at it further. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the whole article, sometimes it is written NAIT, and sometimes Nait. Sometimes it is italicized; Sometimes its not. There needs to be consistency throughout. I believe that when you are talking about the whole line you are using NAIT, but specifically you use Nait. I'm not sure why that would be, though, as all of the products are lower case, so wouldn't the whole range be too?
done. I've de-italicised the product names throughout, which I would agree fits better with the MOS. The manufacturer styles is in caps, but some sources use title case. I have made them all upper case throughout to be consistent with the article title. Ohc ¡digame!05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Naim NAIT a product or a product line or a product range? Obviously it is all three, but from the first line in the lead, we should identify what it is in respect to the article.
My overarching question about this, is the whole article about the produce or the line or both? The first sentence says its a product, but the article seems to be more about the line (with information about the product as well, of course). IMHO it should either say it is a product line or "both a product and product line" in the lead. TLSuda (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence is almost directly repeated in the body, it should be better paraphrased in one place or the other.
What is with the quotations around "family", "Olive" and "chrome bumper," etc, throughout the article? These are not necessary.
Olive is official, chrome bumper is only a nickname followers coined to identify the older range, so should "chrome bumper" not be in quotes?. Ohc ¡digame!05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...was launched ten years after the firm was founded." Include the year that it was founded, or the year it was launched. We need a point of reference.
"Naim insist..." This should have some tense, either insists or insisted (my preference).
It's British convention often to refer to entities as the collective "they", "Naim insist..." is mean to read as "they insist..." Do you still think it ought to be changed? Ohc ¡digame!05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only think it should be changed to "insisted" because the tense later in the sentence is "published." Either way, this is a minor issue and will not prevent the article from being promoted. TLSuda (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Nait 5 is a redesign from the ground up." This is a cliche. Bleh. And it doesn't agree with the next sentence that says "Subtle...changes..."
This whole section is too verbose and each one would be more suited to a few paragraphs in the beginning of the manual. You are going to have to do some major culling, as in this article, there is WP:UNDUE weight to the individual items whereas the main article is about the whole product range. This section is overly focused. One option may be to put the important parts of this information in a timeline table. This would cover the major changes from one to the previous one, and any important comments.
@TLSuda: Hi, I integrated comparative equipment data in tabular form and hacked away some of the equivalent prose. I think the other points have also been dealt with. I hope this addresses your concerns. -- Ohc ¡digame!08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only complaint about this section is the section name. None of the comments are subjective, they're all objective. This is more of a list of commentary and criticism of the product.
Wow! The article looks great. I love the new table and it presents information in a much more user friendly way. You've done so much work bringing this article up (mostly prior to this WP:GAR) and it definitely shows. I'm very happy to promote this to good article! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
