Talk:M-derived filter
Add topic | M-derived filter 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]- This review is transcluded from Talk:M-derived filter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I think this article has potential but needs better sourcing.
- The lead appears to be WP:OR. Please add a source for the claims made. A lead does not have to be sourced if the points made in the lead are made elsewhere in the article properly sourced of course. The is does not appear to be the case here.
- The derivation section is unsourced.
- The operating frequency section is inadequately sourced. Please point to the specif page in Bode's patent that shows this derivation. In a cursory review I couldn't find it. Note that in a good article, the reader should not have to wade through an entire reference to verify the claim.
- Image impedance section is unsourced
- Ditto Prototype transformations
- Ditto Cascading sections
Reviewer: JPatterson (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the derivations are mostly from Matthaei, I will sort out some inline cites and mark the sections below as I get them done. The Bode patent is not a cite for the operating frequencies (which are well known and in any number of sources) but rather to verify the the rather more obscure claim that the circuit is no good below m=0.2.
- Lead - done
- Derivation section - done
- Operating frequency section - done
- Image impedance section - done
- Prototype transform section - done
- Cascading section - done
SpinningSpark 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Noting that the reviewer has stopped editing, so a new one needs to take over. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed. Besides a few very minor prose issues, the sources do check out, it looks comprehensive enough (given that this is a very narrowly-focused topic), the lead and layout the good, and it's neutral in tone. Looks like everything that the first reviewer addressed were adequately addressed. Good job. –MuZemike 23:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)