Talk:Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

I've added cite needed tags to a few places. There are currently five (5) cite needed tags in the article that have to be addressed.

Ohconfucius, I'd appreciate it if you could also go through the references and use WP:CIT and WP:CITE but particularly WP:CIT to make sure as many fields as possible are filled out for the citations.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: One cite needed tag remains. Also, please format cites using WP:CIT, makes it easier to see what fields, if any, are missing. — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• If there are elements missing from the citation, I will endeavour to include these. However, I note that there is no obligation to use citation templates in articles. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct, there is no requirement to do so, however it would be most appreciated if you did, and would help me better evaluate the article! — Cirt (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can tell you already there is much inconsistency from one citation to the next. Using WP:CIT templates would help to eliminate this. — Cirt (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Cite templates are now in use throughout [almost]. I will include archive links in the near future. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, wonderful, excellent, thank you so much!!! — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am unable to find any sourcing for the one remaining {{cn}} tag. The text was incorporated from a precursor article without checking the status of citations. Whilst logically it would seem that the assertion is not materially misstated, I will probably remove the entire sentence if I fail to find a cite for it today. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, sounds good, keep me posted. — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I note that some citations I added have made it necessary to resequence the citations. This will be done sometime today. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, no worries, — Cirt (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• All citations have been resequenced, and I have now created archives for the citations where these are original content. Note that courtesy links are for the purposes of WP:V during reviews, and have not been archived due to possible copyright implications. I believe that by doing so, we obviate the need to include access dates, which are supposedly useful for retrieval of content from dynamic pages, but are otherwise not obligatory. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, I am removing the outright courtesy links used in the article and putting them here below for reference:

• Boardman, Haden / Mellotone Acoustics (1994). "The Quad Electrostatic Loudspeaker". Sound Practices (courtesy link by The Quad ESL).
• Electrostatic Loudspeaker Instruction Book. QUAD (1980), pg 4.
• Electrostatic Loudspeaker Instruction Book. QUAD (1980), pg 8.
• West, Ralph (1957). "The Quad Electrostatic Speaker". Hi-Fi News (courtesy link by The Quad ESL).
• Beeching, Chris "The Quadfather" The Listener 1998 (courtesy link by The Quad ESL).

-- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Quad ESL-57 luidspreker.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, licensed as public domain. Y
2. File:BBC Listening Room.jpg = image asserted as Fair Use, fair use rationale provided on image page. Only one issue with this one: date missing from information field. Y.

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no way of determining the date of publication without reference to the original printed work. I have applied a certain amount of educated guess work which narrows the date and publication down to 1959–1960, when the demonstration room was likely to have been installed/equipped and product was likely to have been advertised. Is this good enough, or would it fail FU? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Upon inspection of article edit history, no issues with stability going back to beginning of history of article.
2. Same for talk page, looked at talk page edit history, no outstanding issues there either.

— Cirt (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please comment below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Writing quality is okay, but I would strongly recommend requesting copy edit from WP:GOCE, and also going for peer review process after GA Review is completed.
2. There are a few short paragraphs, one-sentence-long paragraphs and two-sentence-long paragraphs throughout the article. These could be merged into other paragraphs, or expanded upon.

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Some outstanding issues with cite needed tags, as noted, above.
2. Please format citations with WP:CIT templates. This makes it easier to see what is missing from fields in the citations. It also makes it much easier to standardize the citations and increase uniformity for the article, overall.

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. The article is indeed thorough and covers major aspects.
2. I would recommend moving the Reception sect to be the last sect of the article.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral and matter of fact wording throughout, passes here.

5. Article stability? See above, passes here.

6. Images?: See above, passes here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

---

NOTE: Please comment below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

>I would recommend moving the Reception sect to be the last sect of the article.

I located the reception section before the 'Product revision' section so as not to give the impression of commenting, or be obliged to comment, on subsequent revisions. I don't know if this makes sense, but I'm prepared to discuss this further. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There are several versions of the product, including four that are currently on the market. But the ones that are iconic are the first generation (ESL57) and the 63 to a lesser extent. I have tried to keep most of the third party comments about the product used in the article to the 57, and one about the ESL63. Do you still think it makes sense to relocate the "reception" section? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do, so long as you make it clear either by mentioning date of review in body text or attribute review to which product specifically they were reviewing. Then the article will both have better flow for readers and still be clear to readers at same time. — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Now done. I've created a new section which now risks being a bit short ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy, I like it, great idea for the sect title! — Cirt (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Thanks so much for being so polite and responsive to my recommendations!!! — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)