Wikipedia:Peer review/Monotron/archive1

Monotron

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to hear comments from experienced editors as to improve the article to B or GA class. I am still rather new to the GA process, so would appreciate any and all comments. For reference, the article was previously featured on DYK and is currently self-rated as C. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

The article is quite short, and maybe can be expanded. Try looking for more sources on Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org or in your local library system (as many libraries have access to databases.)
- I will try, but cannot promise anything.
- I have tried to expand the article slightly.
The lede is quite short. After expanding the article, I suggest expanding the lede.
- Will do
- Lede has been expanded significantly
Any information on its legacy or why it is an important piece of technology?
- Would making "reception" subsections (like in "Monotron") be sufficient?

Maybe, but reception is more talking about reviewer's thoughts on the technology. A legacy section usually talks about how the technology has influenced other things, like future products, pop culture, or the company that made it. If there isn't enough information for its own section, it will sometimes be merged with Reception in a section called "Reception and legacy". Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I will look over whether this is possible. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've had a shot at making a legacy section. Please review. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: please respond to above query. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I have tried to respond to your points. Please tell me if this is satisfactory, and if I should continue with my goal of taking this to GAN. Sorry for multiple pings. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to work towards a GAN, as that is an easier achievement to have. The next thing I suggest is that the quotes be shortened and summarised in the article. Often, block quotes are not necessary and readers are more likely to read summaries over quotes. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've boiled down the quotes slightly and added more context/summarisation. Any other suggestions? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! At GAN, the article will receive additional comments for improvements. In the meantime, I suggest that you archive the websites used as sources by running IABot (click here for the link). Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: will do, thank you. IABot is currently running very s l o w for me, so it might take a while. Should I consider this PR over then? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you if you want to wait for more comments, or if you want to close this. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will close this then and open a GAN. Thank you for your patience and time with this review! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]