Distributed-element circuit received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
A fact from Distributed-element circuit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 December 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
It is fully and properly cited.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
The sources are excellent. Personally I'd favour using the Harvard mechanism to link the References to the Bibliography but this is not a GA requirement.
The images contribute substantially to the article, often contributing insight as well as variety.
7. Overall assessment.
I am more than satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. The article is a model of encyclopedic technical writing and I wish it well if it is intended for FAC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit
@Miniapolis: Thanks for taking this one on. I know it is difficult to copyedit technical articles.
There are a few things I want to undo unless you have some better wording;
A phenomenon that is much used... to A common phenomenon...
It is the use that is common, not the phenomenon itself
...with entirely incorrect results. to ...yielding incorrect results.
This is too weak a statement to my mind. The results are worse than just inaccurate. At this wavelength the nature of componenents can completely change—capacitors appear to be inductors and open circuits suddenly look like short circuits.
Dropping the word "entirely" has lost some information. For a complex shape like a wine glass, I need the entire geometry to calculate the note it will resonate at. For an organ pipe, I only need the length. For the wine glass, the note is characterised (in part) by its height, but not entirely so.
Commensurate line circuits are important because they have an established design theory. to Commensurate line circuits are important here because of their design;...
The change has resulted in bland statement with little information. The point is that commensurate line theory provides a procedure that will guarantee a circuit with the prescribed response. It is a synthesis from a requirement, rather than an analysis of something that might, or might not, do the job. The change also makes the following statement incorrect ...circuits consisting of arbitrary lengths of transmission line (or arbitrary shapes) are not. It's a design theory they lack, not importance.
...in order to benefit from the improved quality. Distributed element designs tend to have greater power handling capability. to ... to benefit from improved quality; distributed element designs tend to have greater power-handling capability.
These are two entirely unrelated points and should not be run together. The improved quality referred to here is Q factor. I was trying (perhaps inadvisedly) to avoid the use of a technical term. Power handling is a different issue altogether.
...the signal frequencies used on these cables are lower... to ...its frequencies...
It is the signal that possesses "frequency", not the cable.
We should be talking about lines here rather than cables. Devices constructed with coaxial technology are usually solid objects. They are not made of flexible cable. Even plain interconnections between units were, when this technology was dominant, often made with rigid copper pipe structures rather than cable. I know the cable article is hidden behind a pipe, but there is no more suitable article to link to.
No problem with the changes; you're more knowledgeable than I, and if the FA reviewers have issues with the prose they'll let you know. I'll ping you when I'm done. All the best, Miniapolis14:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The attempts to work in distributed element model into the lead have resulted in very ungainly wording. The current wording ...such as capacitors, inductors, and transformers, as implemented by the distributed element model is just a disaster. That sounds like capacitors etc (lumped elements) are implemented by the DE model. First of all, the DE model doesn't implement anything. Rather, it models an implementation, and it most certainly doesn't implement a capacitor, which is a lumped component.
I get the desire to have this in the lead, but really, there is no pressing need for a mention of modelling in the lead at all. It is not essential to helping the reader get a grip on what this article is about. Unless there is some better wording suggested, I intend to remove it. SpinningSpark17:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am the guilty party and can stand by my intention, but must admit that my implementation is indeed poor, in particular my placing the matter too early in the article. Maybe eventually I can work out a better way; maybe not, but meanwhile feel free. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've rolled back the first paragraph to before the introduction of the link. It was first introduced by user:Sam-2727, but I don't like that version either. It said conventional components are difficult (or impossible) to implement if the distributed element model is not used. This is not correct for the same reasons. The model does not implement components, and it does not model conventional components – it models distributed components. SpinningSpark10:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there were a good way to work the link into the narrative, with correction of fact. If it cannot be done, then I am regretful but must accept it. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
