Talk:Staggered tuning

Staggered tuning has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 3, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Staggered tuning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is way out of my field but I'll give it a shot. Just don't expect me to be an expert by the end of it. Wugapodes (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was intense. I understood more than I thought I would, but that's still not a lot. Because of my lack of knowledge, and lack of access to the sources, I'm going to trust that they say what is referenced.

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
~~See comments 1 and 3 below.~~

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
~~See comment 2 below.~~
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

~~"Synchronous tuning" shouldn't be bolded unless the article is about it, which I don't think it is. A wikilink would be great.~~
The amplifier is synchronously tuned if all the C_k and L_k are equal. In staggered tuning, the Ck and Lk are generally different in each stage. Each equal to their respective letter? So, all C_k are equal to each other, and all, L_k are equal to each other, must C_k equal L_k? And for the second statement, must a C_k be equal or different (or does it not matter?) to its respective L_k? Must each C_k and L_k be different than every other C_k and L_k? I guess clarify that statement as it can be interpreted many different ways and I don't know the correct answer.
~~In the A₀ := A(w₀) equation, should that colon be there?~~

(Optional) The first graph showing synchronous tuning bandwidth response, I feel, would be more informative if contrasted with the bandwidth and gain effects graph of staggered tuning that's shown a little further down. At least as a layman, the two together would be a nice way to show, visually, how the two differ.

Replies[edit]

"Synchronous tuning" is bolded per MOS:BOLD because that title redirects here. In the process of making the comparison between the two schemes in this article it has already been fully explained what it is. It could possibly be made its own article by someone, but I have nothing further to write about the subject.

Didn't realize it redirected here. That makes sense then.Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Ck and Lk, I will try and make that clearer. It is that if all Ck are equal to each other and all Lk are equal to each other, then it is synchronous tuning. The converse is not true however; one cannot say that for synchronous tuning they must be equal.

The present wording is much clearer. Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol := means "is defined as" rather than "is equal to". See List of mathematical symbols#Equality, equivalence and similarity.

Sounds good. Like I said, not my field so I'm not familiar with the symbols, but thank you for the link!Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the existing diagrams could be combined successfully, the result would be too busy. I'll look at possibly producing a new diagram but with fewer variables. SpinningSpark 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new graphic is great, and I think really helps illustrate the comparison. You really did a great job on this article, including the illustrations. Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

On Hold for 7 days. It's really close. Just address those few things and you're golden (well, green I guess). Wugapodes (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed A very informative article. As a layman, I found it educating and with enough information that I could at least understand what the topic was. From the level of detail it went into and the caliber of the sources, I would even venture to say that an expert would not find it too lacking. That being said, I would strongly recommend an expert in the field do a round of review to speak to the comprehensiveness of the article before seeking featured article grading. Congratulations on such a good article. Wugapodes (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]