Talk:Slotted line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article North8000 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, taking on two at once. Thanks for the effort, I'll try to keep up with you. SpinningSpark 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It won't be hard, I'm slow. :-) I noticed that both have been waiting for a long time. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I find that's fairly typical for electronics articles. Not many people are willing to review them. SpinningSpark 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

I have comments on two general areas regarding the lead. First it seems to have some sidebar type stuff (especially in the first paragraph) which is not in the body of the article. I was think that some of it might be "too sidebar" for the led (but I could be wrong. But I think that a clearer cut note is that the lead should be a summary of the article and there is material in the lead which is not in the article.

My second area of suggestion is that the excellent material in the "Maxima and minima", "wavelength" and "standing wave ration" sections are core material on saying (in a straightforward manner) what this does and how it is used to do that. My suggestion would be to get more of that into the lead. I would be happy to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sidebar"? You are correct in identifying the three basic measurements done on a slotted line. VSWR especially, is the classic measurement for which slotted lines were used. In fact, the terminology of VSWR is only still with us because slotted lines used to be so ubiquitous. VSWR is very easy to measure on a slotted line but it is not the best parameter to use. If it were not for slotted lines we probably would not ever have used VSWR (which is now slowly dying out) but would always instead talk about reflection coefficient or the corresponding S-parameter. Please feel free to make improvements if you want to. SpinningSpark 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try that. (acting only as an editor, feel very free to revert me) Basically, I was thinking of incorporating more of what is in those three sections into the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By "sidebar" I was thinking as being sidebar to the main points of the article / things that would normally be in the lead. I was thinking of this material: " can still be found in budget applications. Their main drawback is that they are labour intensive to use and require calculation, tables, or plotting to make use of the results. They need to be made with mechanical precision and the probe and its detector need to be adjusted with care, but they can give very accurate results. They are used in conjunction with a microwave power source and usually, in keeping with their low-cost application, a cheap Schottky diode detector and VSWR meter rather than an expensive microwave power meter." North8000 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubtless that can be improved, but there is a whole section on their "mechanical fiddliness" which needs to be summarised in the lede. I would say that the restriction of their use to budget and academic areas is an important aspect of the subject. There is a whole section on test setups which also needs summarising in the lede. I thought I was doing well to combine all three of these points inot one passage in the lede. SpinningSpark 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be and that so far I've missed it in my first couple of passes looking for it. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking for what? "Mechanical fiddliness"? Try ==Accuracy considerations==. SpinningSpark 23:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Between that and a sentence in the "Description" section regarding current usage/non-usage, I can see it now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For my next comment I need to provide a bit of context. I do a fair amount of published writing and course instruction involving conveying certain technical topics to people who don't know them. And I've been told (and magazines keep coming to me) that I'm pretty good at that. In essence, empathy for the person who is new to the topic, and I tend to be a bit tougher in that area on GA reviews. Regarding this topic, decades ago I aced a couple of transmission line courses but have forgotten or become non-fluent on 98% of what I learned. Also decades ago I had a lot of hands-on experience in RF, but it was in UHF on down. That said....

I think that this article is a bit "hard to learn from". IMO it really needs more of the core statements presented as such written in ways where the 'basics are conveyed without needing to first go learn other terms. This is the only remaining question in my mind. If you prefer, I'll pass it as GA right now as is. The other alternative might be to spend at least a few more days in the area I discussed. Because I don't have your level of expertise and fluency in this area (nor a perspective on the actual main uses of this device....it to spot and fix SWR problems?) ) , I can't just jump in and edit it well in a reasonable amount of time so I'd need your help. Probably via. fixing my errors. :-) I might try a few edits this way. Or I'll just pass it as is if you prefer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether you pass it now or later, I am more than happy to work with you to improve the article. I also don't have a problem with you copyediting the article, even if that results in some errors that need correcting. SpinningSpark 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me these things based on your overall perspective. Three-word answers are fine.

• So a general case "sequence of connection" would be Source <-> transmission line <-> slotted line <-> transmission line <-> load. For typical use, would you add or delete anything from that?

  More or less. The DUT is often a small device and can be mounted directly on the end the slotted line either using its own connectors or, in the case of an individual component, in a specially made jig. The DUT forms the load of the setup and hence no transmission line is needed at that end. Of course, if one is trying to measure the VSWR of an antenna atop a 100 foot pylon then a connecting line is required for practical purposes. This would normally be the antenna's own feed line and would form part of the thing being tested.

  Many test setups also include a precision attenuator between the generator and the slotted line input. This is shown in the photograph and the reasons are explained in the article.

• In typical use, is the source a part of the test equipment, or is it a part of what is being tested?

  The source is usually part of the test setup. The main measurement that could be made on a source is determining its wavelength (and hence frequency).

• Is there a "main" use for this? (e.g. tuning an antenna/the load)? Or maybe not, maybe its a generalized lab instrument for R&D etc.

  It is a generalised piece of equipment. It can be used in industrial production settings as well as labs. Formerly, this was very common at microwave frequencies. For instance, early in my career one was used to determine junction capacitance of semiconductor devices in a production test room.

• Is there a main parameter that this is used to measure (e.g. SWR)?

  Yes, the fundamental thing measured by a slotted line is SWR. That information, together with the position of nodes measured with the vernier allow a number of other parameters to be calculated, notably impedance. SWR of the antenna and feed is very important for transmitters outputting more than a trivial amount of power. SpinningSpark 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps on what I'll try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this criteria. I think that a few areas are still a bit hard to follow, but it's at or above the norm for technical article. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. Has 4 images, no non-free images so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Result

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good article. Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Reviewer