Talk:Waveguide filter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VQuakr (talk · contribs) 06:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well written

Minor issues:

A few grammar issues in lede corrected by reviewer.

Verifiable

Pass.

Broad in coverage

Pass.

Neutral

Pass.

Stable

Pass.

Image use

Minor issues:

Section "Corrugated-waveguide filter" refers to figures "0300" and "0310". I think these should be figures 10 and 11; please verify.
Overall, referring to "figure numbers" makes more sense to me in a paper encyclopedia than an online one. This is no big deal if the image is adjacent to the text, but in some places figures are referenced elsewhere in the article. Rather than referring to these by figure number, consider moving them to the notes section so they can be click-linked. It probably would not hurt to repeat the header section image in the notes if necessary. I am not sure how other articles have dealt with this in the past, so please consider this finding to be optional with respect to GA promotion.

Result

On hold pending correction of minor issues. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figure numbers are now fixed, this was leftover temporary numbering from article construction, probably missed because of the plural. I use figure numbers because it is not always clear which figure the reader should be looking at. Referring by "figure in this section" or "figure to the left" is not acceptable because the page may very well not be rendered in the same way that I see it. This is especially true of mobile devices and there is also a big problem for users who use accessibility devices like screenreaders. I have used this system on other articles that have achieved FA, see mechanical filter or distributed element filter for instance. FA reviewers like to see a consistent system, so I refer to all figures in this way whether it is needed or not. I like the idea of clickable links, but I am not in favour of moving the images to the notes section, that really would be going back to the days of paper when photographic or colour plates could only be provided for a limited number of pages and were all grouped together. They images are better off in the place where they are most relevant. Setting up clickable links for that would have to be manually maintained. Frankly, that is more trouble than it is worth especially, as you say yourself, in the majority of cases the image is very close to the reference. Spinning Spark 12:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you can come up with a way to not use one of the "figures" for the lede image, all the better. Great work! VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing, it is very much appreciated. I have had problems at FA in the past with articles where the lede image does not really need a figure, but they still want it numbered for consistency. Possibly flawed reasoning, but it was easier to go along with it at the time. Spinning Spark 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]