Talk:Achieser–Zolotarev filter

Did you know nomination

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 Amkgp (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Achieser-Zolotarev filter
• Zolotarev polynomials

)

• ... that Achieser-Zolotarev filters (based on Zolotarev polynomials) find applications in waveguide despite having a low-frequency insertion loss worse than the more common Chebyshev filter? Source: Levy, p. 529. Cameron, p. 399 states the second part of the hook more directly than Levy (although it is there).

• Reviewed: Aeolidiella alderi and Ryūkyū Disposition

Created by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 15:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Please indicate exactly which occurence of "waveguide" (and in which of the two articles) should be plural. SpinningSpark 22:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I meant in the hook. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Doh, of course you did. No, not really; it's waveguide the format, not waveguides the components. But if you are going to reject the hook, it really doesn't matter. SpinningSpark 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, still reads strange to me, but maybe that's just a UK/US English thing, and if we're using ALT1, it's a non issue anyway. You're good to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Nit: the sentence, "The filter is especially useful in some waveguide applications" could use a source, to show that it's not just the wiki-author's opinion.

That sentence is in the lead. It is conventional not to put cites in the lead for information already covered in the body of the article.

True, but you had referenced the sentence before that, so I assumed you were not using that convention. I have no strong feeling about this either way, so it's fine the way it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The cite in the lead is for the alt spelling. That doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, and it couldn't really be sensibly worked in anywhere. SpinningSpark 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

On the hook, try this

• ALT1 ... that Zolotarev polynomials were introduced in 1868, but not applied to Achieser-Zolotarev filters until 1970?

SpinningSpark 22:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I like ALT1 better than the original. I think it's more approachable to most people (even those with a technical background). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Is there a reason you still haven't given this a tick? SpinningSpark 06:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1a ... that Zolotarev polynomials were introduced in 1868, but not applied to Zolotarev filters until 1970?

The shortened name is a valid synonym and improves the hook because it better brings out the irony of the century gap between discovery and use for something that didn't exist in Zolotarev's day. SpinningSpark 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)