Talk:Transfer function matrix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello, I started a GA review of this article. One question I always like to ask early is: is there an editor who could / would be involved in the GA review process on behalf of the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I try to be "middle of the road" regarding being tough or easy. One area where I'm a bit tougher than average is empathy for a typical reader, but I think that that helps the article. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North8000, thank you for reviewing. That is a sensible question to ask, it is very annoying when people nominate an article but don't, or can't, take part in the review. Rest assured you will get prompt responses from me. SpinningSpark 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I got a fast start on the easy stuff, I'll be a bit slower on the next stages. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still working, I haven't gone away. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I have finished enough of a review of this article to determine that, as is, I would pass it as a Good Article. As I mentioned, I'm always thinking with particular concern / empathy for an appropriate reader. In this case I think that that would be a person with some knowledge about but not fluency in the fields referred to in this article. At the top of the list of what I'm thinking about is linear algebra, followed by transforms (e.g LaPlace) followed by a few electrical/electronic technical principles and other technical principles closely related to that. IMHO, for that appropriate reader, the ideal article would "teach" the topic, or lead them to an understanding of it. IMHO while this article provides a lot of information and concepts about the topic, it doesn't do that. Unless you wish to carry the process further (rather than pass it now) I won't get into a more detailed description of that. IMHO, for articles in Wikipedia on abstract and difficult to "teach" topics, this is the Wikipedia norm, and so not a reason to fail the article. So, my question to you is: do you prefer that I pass the the article now,, or would you wish to enter into an interactive / joint effOrt and somewhat "critiquing" process to get it closer to or to what IMHO I described? So, if you'd rather not do that, or disagree with what I described, I will pass the article now. If we enter into that process, and you later decide that process, or you decide that you disagree with me, then I will pas the article then. Either way is 100% fine for this article which IMHO meets Wikipedia Good Article standards as it is today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

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

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Has 4 images. One is public domain and three have suitable licensing.North8000 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]