File talk:WP subter homesick blues.ogg

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Reason turns rancid in topic Spoken article quality assessment

Spoken article quality assessment

edit

Version reviewed: Jan 7, 2008.


Technical quality: Medium.

  • Encoded at 108 kbps, not 48 kbps per recording guidelines. Also in 2 channel stereo instead of 1 channel mono. This makes the audio file larger than it needs to be for a good quality voice recording.
  • Microphone popping throughout. Consider turning down microphone sensitivity to reduce "wet lip noise", as we call it.
  • No web address nor GNU license statement given.

Clarity: High. Good pacing overall.


Accuracy: High. I question "selective reading", however the article is not very coherent with all the bullet points, so I don't blame you.


Notes: {{{notes}}}


Help with recording issues can be obtained under "Recording assistance" here.
Information on the assessment procedure can be found on the spoken article assessment page.

Reviewed by: Reason turns rancid (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply