Talk:Inverted-F antenna

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Spinningspark in topic Fixed error in typesetting

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Inverted-F antenna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply


Well thanks for reviewing Samtar! SpinningSpark 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Fully meets 1a criteria.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) Fully meets 1b criteria.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Article contains a list of all references set out as per Wikipedia:FNNR, thus satisfying criteria 2a.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All sourced considered reliable to section 2b standards.   Pass
    (c) (original research) The article does not contain any original research.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Article contains a broad overview of the major aspects of the subject.   Pass
    (b) (focused) The summary style is not overly detailed yet focused.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The entire article is written in a neutral manner.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Article has been stable without major changes due to dispute.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Fully meets 6a criteria.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Use of five appropriate images with informative captions.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass Article meets GA criteria.

Discussion

edit

Well done SpinningSpark - this article flew through the GA criteria! Keep up the good work, and never stop striving to improve   samtar {t} 09:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Incorrect usage of plural, i.e. antennas vs. antennae

edit

For inanimate objects: one antenna, two antennas. For animate objects ("bugs", insects, sea creatures and the like): one antenna, two antennae.12.90.238.18 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is not incorrect. The Latinate plural has been used right from the time radio was invented, and is still used in scholarly papers now. Either plural is acceptable, see User:Spinningspark/Plural of antenna. SpinningSpark 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fixed error in typesetting

edit

While inserting minor formatting changes and minor citation corrections, I noticed that the article was full of post-period typewriter double-spaces. That now-obsolete habit is not used with proportionally spaced fonts: It was only used for old fixed-space (typewriter) fonts in the early days of ASCII text.

So I removed all of the double-spaces after periods I could find. Please do not try to restore them: Wikipedia is rendered in proportionally spaced fonts and it is now a typing error.
107.116.93.41 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Readers can render Wikipedia pages in any font they want. You have no idea what they are doing. This style is not an error, either in recognised style manuals (see User:Spinningspark/Two spaces at the end of sentences) or in the Wikipedia MOS (see MOS:DOUBLE SPACE). Styles already established in an article take precedence per MOS:STYLEVAR unless there is a good reason to change them. And in this case there is no good reason since, as you say, they are not rendered in proportional fonts and hence make no visible difference. SpinningSpark 11:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply