Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment

How can Ohm's Law be an example of something with a "low importance" rating, but the article itself is graded a "high importance"? 63.202.158.130 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Joe I 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Ohm's Law... how can it be considered to be LOW IMPORTANCE by any standard? Linear electronic devices would be impossible to construct if Ohm's Law weren't obeyed by many components!! The "Importance scale" scheme seems to completely confound the issue of importance versus general familiarity. For instance, I would argue that band theory of semiconductors is very important to the understanding of semiconductors and their technological use... however it is also very unfamiliar to the general public.

I'm not sure that greater familiarity with Switches than Ohm's Law means that the latter is a higher priority. For one thing, people who look up Switch will probably already have some understanding of the concept, while those who look up Ohm's Law may have no background at all. MOXFYRE (contrib) 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree that Ohm's Law should be of higher priority. But those are set up by familiarity rather than importance. More familiar subjects are more important for an encyclopedia. I was looking for a way to include all of a category into one importance level, such as laws and theories. While I could see bumping these up to mid or maybe even high. Most people who have even a passing interest in electronics could name a few of the laws(like me). But some are very specific and/or obscure. I was also making sure that all priority levels were filled. If we moved laws and theories up, what will drop to low? Joe I 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log section

The log section says it cannot be transcluded because of its extreme size. In fact, it is an empty page! Wikiproject electronics is not that big, and the assesment changes over 30 days are minuscule (in this case non-existent) so that is a pretty silly statement to have on the page. Does anyone know what bot is responsible for this by the way? There should be a link to it in case it(s owner) needs to be contacted. SpinningSpark 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Electronic

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

I have found an article to which the stub rating does not apply. Hybrid coupler is an extended redirect to Power dividers and directional couplers. The goal of writing it as an extended redirect instead of a standard redirect seems to be to provide citations that prove that hybrid couplers really are a form of directional coupler. I suggest a new step on the quality scale be created.

Option 1: a specific step for this situation. "ERD" is an extended redirect or disambiguation page, which provides references to other pages together with citations proving the relevance of the destination pages.

Option 2: a more general grade. "S" is a satisfactory article which, due to the unusual nature of the article, is naturally short.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]