Talk:Impedance analogy

Impedance analogy has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 30, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Impedance analogy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that according to the impedance analogy, a spring is analogous to an electrical capacitor? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Impedance analogy.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Impedance analogy/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing style is succinct and presents the topic in an effective format for the reader who may or may not be familiar with the subject matter.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Lede intro section is three paragraphs long and under the maximum of four paragraphs per WP:LEAD . Good layout and structural organization overall.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .	Duly cited throughout.
	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).	Citations provided to reliable sources in an in-line citation format with References provided at the end of the article corresponding to the cited works.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Diagrams are provided but they are quite helpful and also duly cited to appropriate sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article is indeed most certainly broad in scope, covering major aspects in multiple different types of educational applications.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is focused on the topic, with appropriate bluelinks to other Wikipedia articles in-text where necessary and appropriate to refer the reader to additional material for context.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, the article is written in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. After inspection of article edit history and talk page edit history, I've found no outstanding issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images check out okay. Not sure why there are not also versions on Wikimedia Commons, but that's not required for GA status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Images are most certainly relevant to the topic and appropriate in their usage.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall presenting a subject matter that is not simple in nature in an accessible format for the reader and editor, alike. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Cirt. I see that you have picked up all at the same time several other articles I nominated. Thanks once again for your hard work. SpinningSpark 00:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Spinningspark, thanks for your contributions to Quality improvement projects on this site. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author uses 'u' not as displacement, but for velocity, which is a bit confusing and not as common in the literature.

In much transducer literature where both mechanical & electrical domains must be represented, 'u' is reserved for displacement, and 'e' is commonly voltage-- then 'v' can be available for velocity. Perhaps this would make it more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.189.121 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to convert this article to CS1 citation style using {{

}}, making references much easier to use and refer to on the mobile Wikipedia app, as well as making it more accessible.

Yea? Nay? Thanks.  — sbb (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really understood the sfn and harvnb style, and why people like it. Maybe you can explain better, what that looks like in the source, and why it's easier to maintain and use on mobile. Or point us to a tutorial that's less cryptic than what you linked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: (I outdented my reply because some of the formatting doesn't like being indented w/ wikitext ':') Sorry I haven't replied to you until now. I forgot to add this to my to-do list. =) Briefly, the Harvard-style referencing is just "Author date, p. 123". That's it. It's not substantially different to how this article already uses most refs (other than this article doesn't use 'date' in the refs, such as: "Talbot-Smith, p. 1.86").

The main difference comes when we use the {{

}} templates in the references list):

1. {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} templates generate consistent punctuation & formatting. No need to copyedit periods, spacing, ampersand vs. and, etc.; it takes those nitnoid decisions / minor error potentials away from the editors.
2. Same thing, but even more importantly with the {{cite}} templates in the reference list(s) at the end. The data is automatically formatted consistently.
3. Also regarding {{cite}} usage: the biblio fields are marked-up as metadata, as COinS data, which allows other sites and data consumers to automatically parse bibliographic metadata, rather than parse human-formatted biblio data (with the possibility of formatting errors, that trips up computer parsers).
4. The sfn/harvnb templates automatically general refids to the existing {{cite}} template. This makes it so that hovering over a sfn/harvnb reference brings up a highlighted link to the citation. And the reader can click the link to go directly to the citation at the end. For example, the reference here^[1] was generated with <ref>{{harvnb|sbb|2021|p=69}}</ref>. {{sfn}} is basically the same as {{harvnb}}, just without needing to use <ref>...</ref> tags around it.^[2] (generated with {{sfn|sbb|Smith|2021|p=123}})
5. For mobile site and mobile app users, clicking on a reference superscript number shows the same thing as if you hovered over the reference on a desktop browser. If the reference is a {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}}, the mobile user can also click the "sbb & Smith 2021, p. 123", and it will take them straight to the reference, rather than them having to remember the reference name and page number, and scroll down to the citations, etc. It comes down to usability and accessibility issues.

As some concrete examples, the first few refs and cites in this article would be written as such:

• "... especially in the field of filters.^[3]" ({{sfn|Talbot-Smith|2013|p=1.86}})
• "... electrical and mechanical domains.^[4]" ({{tag|ref|attribs=name=Carr|content={{harvnb|Carr|2002|pp=170–171}})
• "... thus anticipating the electronic Butterworth filter.^[5] ({{tag|ref|content={{harvnb|Darlington|1984|p=7}}

The citations at the end would be written as:

• {{cite book|last= Talbot-Smith |first= Michael |date= 2013 |title= Audio Engineer's Reference Book |publisher= Taylor & Francis |isbn= 1136119736}}
• {{cite book|last= Carr |first= Joseph J. |date= 2002 |title= RF Components and Circuits |publisher= Newnes |isbn= 0-7506-4844-9}}
• {{cite patent||ref= {{sfnRef|Harrison|1927}} |inventor-last= Harrison |inventor-first= Henry C. |fdate= 11 October 1927 |gdate= 8 October 1929 |title= Acoustic device |country= US |number= 1730425}}

 — sbb (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless the citation style is obstructing you from making a major addition to this article (and the hsitory seems to show you have made zero substantive contributions) it is beneficial to no one to change to something that gets in the way of the actual content creators. You have put forward no rationale whatsoever why this article in particular would benefit from the change. In the absence of that then
  WP:CITEVAR should be respected. SpinningSpark 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  To be clear, I'm respecting

  harvnb

  }}.

  "You have put forward no rationale whatsoever why this article in particular would benefit from the change"... strongly disagreed. My rationale is that every article benefits from accessibility improvements, and I assert (whether or not people agree, is another matter) that my proposed change would provide those improvements.

  As far as myself having made no substantial edits to this article... that doesn't matter. I'm a wikignome, I'm good at the {{cite}} templates. I've made hundreds of edits improving articles regarding their citations and references. Please judge my proposal based on what's possibly good for the article, not based on any article gatekeeping or

  WP:OWNership. Thank you. =)  — sbb (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For an example of what I'm proposing, see the before and after ref/{{cite}} cleanups I made at

  cite}} would provide.  — sbb (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My point was exactly that your rationale is that every article benefits from your proposal. If that's what you believe, go and argue that on a policy page. If it becomes policy I will start to comply. In the meantime, I'm not going to get into an attritional discussion about it on article after article. Every system has its pros and cons. You can read my thoughts in my essay on the subject. You can discuss it on the talk page there if you like. Let me know if you open a discussion anywhere else. SpinningSpark 11:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your reply. It looks like neither of us opened with our best foot forward here, it seems. I'm not so much interested in dictating policy, but even if I were, these are not exclusive efforts. I could hypothetically advocate policy, while simultaneously making my case for each article where required by

  WP:CITEVAR

  .

  In this article's case: this article is GA, and it has a consistent citation style. As such, I'm following WP:CITEVAR by seeking consensus on the article's Talk page. That is all. Clearly, you are a solid no on the consensus seeking. That's fine. But by the same token, I have the right to ask & seek consensus on article Talk as required by WP:CITEVAR.

  Let me know if you open a discussion anywhere else. =) I'm going to continue working on individual articles as my attention finds them. If I feel they could benefit from a switch from one style to another, I'll open discussion on those articles' Talk pages. If they are part of your watchlist, I look forward to productive discussion with you. If not, perhaps we might meet again at a policy RfC on this subject somewhere. Kind regards.  — sbb (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]