Template:Did you know nominations/Commensurate line circuit
- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 08:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Commensurate line circuit
edit- ... that commensurate line theory is able to eliminate series connected components in electrical circuits by replacing them with shunt connected components?
- Reviewed: Zerbe Run
Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC).
The article is new enough and long enough. QPQ is done, properly cited and the offline sources I will just have to accept in good faith; no copyvios detected otherwise. The one concern I do have is about the hook, because I think it may prove too difficult for the average reader to understand what it means, let alone consider it interesting. I do understand that this is a complicated topic, but can an effort be made to present a hook which is somewhat more intelligible with regards to the average reader?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion of something from the article that could be worked into an interesting hook? I am certaily happy to work it into a hook if you just point to it. I chose this fact because I figured that most people would be familiar with series and parallel connections. Many are probably also aware that circuit behaviour is usually radically different between the two connections. Converting from one to the other without changing the circuit response is therefore an interesting trick, at least to those who are interested in such things. It is hard to come up with something even more basic without saying something utterly bland and uninteresting. SpinningSpark 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do understand the message you're conveying in that last comment, but the wording you chose in the hook just makes it seem that much more complicated. I know this probably pains the ears of any expert, and I apologize in advance, but is it possible you can 'dumb down' your hook down to the level of the average reader? The way you just explained it to me in your comment here makes perfect sense to me, whereas the original hook merely confuses me. Alternatively, you could perhaps pick a hook based on the application for mobile devices. These days, it goes without saying that nearly anyone has a smartphone, so a hook based upon that could potentially be a concept people can more easily connect with.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well taking your suggestion of converting what I just said into a hook gets;
- ALT1 ... that commensurate line theory is able to convert series connections into parallel connections without changing the circuit response as would normally be expected for such a change
- although that doesn't look particularly less complicated to me. On a hook relating to smartphones, the article does not really say anything relating to smartphones. The one comment in the article about mobile devices is kind of tangential, and leads to a hook like,
- ALT2 ... that commensurate line circuits designed directly from Richards' transformation are not very compact and not so suitable for mobile devices
- I'm not so fond of that one either, but they are both out there now. SpinningSpark 17:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
