Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Planar transmission line

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Planar transmission line

[edit]
(
)
Slotline
Slotline

Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

First of all, let me state that I have only got involved with DYK on two or three occasions in the past, and I don't think I reviewed anything then. Therefore this is completely new territory for me, so please excuse me if I've got things wrong. To comment on the criteria in order:

    • New - if my understanding is correct, this is where it falls down. The rules state it has to be expanded 5-fold in the 7 days prior to submission. This takes it from this version of 27 Jan 2017 to this version of 10 Feb 2017 (diff). This does not meet the criteria as I understand it. - Meets criteria see comments below
    • Long enough - at least 1500 characters. No problem here.
    • Within policy - seems ok to me, though I don't claim to understand the technical aspects.
    • Hook is short enough - yes (179 characters), and seems to be formatted correctly
    • Hook does not strike me as particularly interesting to a broad audience. I'm afraid the science is beyond me to check the sources.
    • Hook is neutral
    • QPQ - Spinningspark reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Suhl card reader case.
    • Image is ok.

In summary the main problem is with the newness of the article, though as I say this is the first time I've reviewed a DYK so I may have misunderstood the rules.

Optimist on the run (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: This article has been submitted as a new article moved from userspace, not as a ×5 expansion. In such cases the seven days are counted from the date of the move to mainspace, not from the date of creation. This article was moved to mainspace on 9 February 2017 and submitted to DYK on 10 February 2017, one day later. @Bluemoonset:, please confirm I am correctly stating the rules. SpinningSpark 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:, pinging again with the correct username. SpinningSpark 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I'd missed the move. Agreed that it meets criteria here. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Then you should mark it with a passed tick if you are now satisfied that it is ok to go. Are you passing the hook? SpinningSpark 20:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Could the hook be made more interesting to a broad audience? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you find anything in the article interesting? If not, what do you expect to be done about this? In other words, is your problem that you don't find the article subject interesting rather than you don't find the hook in particular interesting? I carefully chose the hook as something that is likely to be understandable to a broad audience in a technical article. Most people will have been taught in school that electrical current only flows in a complete circuit of conductors. Thus, it is at least mildly surprising that a circuit of conductors is not essential to form a transmission line. There are many more important facts in the article. Something from the history section could be used for instance. But I doubt that the inventor of coplanar waveguide would be any more interesting or understandable to a general audience. SpinningSpark 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that as a typical person with no knowledge or technical interest in the subject, there's nothing in the hook that induces me to read more. I'm left thinking 'so what?' after reading it. But if you think it's sufficient, I'll give it the tick. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
And all I'm saying is that you are judging the hook as a subject you personally don't find interesting rather than looking at the hook itself. I've asked you what you did find interesting in the article and you have chosen not to respond. Did you even read the article? I've offered to create historical related hooks but you have declined to respond to that also. I've given a rationale why the hook is interesting (because the fact is not self evident) and you have not responded to that either in any meaningful way. So what do you expect me to do about this? Personally, I have no interest whatsover in articles about soaps like Coronation Street but would I be right in rejecting a hook because I don't like soaps? It's not up to me to tell you that this is sufficient, you are the one who is supposed to be reviewing this. Your "so what" comment is infuriating. So you don't like it, so what? How about a constructive, actionable comment instead? SpinningSpark 19:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


I understand your frustration, but please understand a couple of points. Firstly, I've been away this weekend, with no internet access other than a patchy mobile signal, and editing on a mobile is irritating at the best of times, so I was unable to give long responses until now.

Secondly, I admitted from the start I was new to reviewing. I didn't want to do it, but under the QPQ rules as I understood it at the time, I had to review something before I could nominate my own article. Having done that, I now see it's not essential as I've nominated less than five articles, so if you want to get a more experienced DYK editor to review it I quite understand. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not really my choice who reviews the article. It's down to you were you go from here with it. None of that is really any sort of answer as to what you would like to see as a hook. SpinningSpark 23:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment The reviewer forgot to mention the status of the picture. It appears to be the own work of the uploader to Commons, and is properly licensed and copyright free. Clear at 100 pix. I also agree that the original hook is so technical that it will not be interesting to any but the most well-informed of our readers. That is why I proposed a more modest hook. I would review this but as the proponent of the latest hook I am DSQ. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I'm happy to go with this alternative hook - Spinningspark, do you have any objections? Optimist on the run (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Spinningspark can we strike the original hook and go with ALT1? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that Earwig is clear and the article has no copyright violations or close paraphrasing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the ALT1 hook (except that I think "needs" needs the definite article: "the needs"). Sourcing for the US military origin is Oliner, p. 556 and Bhat & Koul, pp. 2-3. Neither source explicitly states that this technology is now used in mobile phones and satellite TV, so I have added an additional source, Räisänen & Lehto, for this information. SpinningSpark 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good to go then with the alternative hook "... that planar transmission lines were developed at first by the needs of the US military, but today can be found in household mass-produced items such as mobile phones and satellite TV receivers?" Optimist on the run (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Planar_transmission_line&oldid=815683395"