Talk:Rega Planar 3

"iconic"? "household name"?. This reads like it was written by the company's PR department. Maybe in the audiophile world it's well known, but few UK households today even have a record player. I've certainly never heard anyone refer to this brand. And who is "Gandy"? And there needs to be some explanation of why the opinions of Jim Clements et al (whoever they are) are significant. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

agreed, this "iconic" brand name has 0 recognition in the UK. technics or vestax would be recognised as standards of quality and use, but no dj i've asked has even heard of rega, perhaps 20 years ago it was known in the UK, but now no way. this article looks like a PR job, needs editing for NPOV188.220.151.59 (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• PR? Pick up any hi-fi magazine and you'll see whenever Rega's mentioned, the association with the record deck is immediately established, so it's iconic in that context. I'm writing about esoteric pieces of electronics, and it's in that sense the Rega 3 a household name. I wholly agree that even back in the golden age of vinyl Technics would have been better known, but Rega have hovered on the edge, between "home stereo" and "high fidelity" and is thus a "crossover" product. No, it's not something a DJ would use as it's strictly home audio – belt-driven turntables lend poorly to tagging and turntablism. Yes, times have changed. Few households these days have any record player to speak of, the music they listen to comes off a computer. What's more, I actually set out to write about a legacy product, except that this has a close cousin that's still in production. it's not that easy to write about iconic objects in ordinary everyday terms. Most of the stuff written is verifiable. I have no connection with the company and have never even owned the product. Feel free to copyedit for whatever reason, or if you feel it's in violation of WP:NPOV especially as noted above. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi-fi journalists tend to be freelancers, and you often see their names pop up in rival magazines. It's a particular hallmark of the trade, so I felt it more appropriate to use the chappy's name. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rega Planar 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:  Ohc ^¡digame!

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD:

1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
   • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
   • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
   • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
     • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
     • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
     • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
     • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
     • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
     • Check for Pronunciation: None
     • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
     • Check for Biographies: NA
     • Check for Organisms: NA
4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
   • Check for Non-English titles:
   • Check for Usage in first sentence:
   • Check for Separate section usage:
6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
   • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
   • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
   • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
     • Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER)
     • Fix short paragraphs.
2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
   • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
   • Check for Works or publications:  Done
   • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done
   • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
   • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done
   • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
   • Check for Links to sister projects:  Done
   • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
3. Check for Formatting:  Done
   • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
   • Check for Links:  Done
   • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
   • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
   • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
   • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
   • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
   • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
   • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
   • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
   • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
   • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
   • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
   • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
   • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:

None

• Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
• Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
   • Is it contentious?: No
   • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
   • Who is the author?:
   • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
   • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
   • What else has the author published?:
   • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:

 Done

1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

 Done

1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
   1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
   2. Check for Out of scope:
2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
   1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
   2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
   3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
   4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
   5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:

 Done

1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done

Images:

 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
2. Check for copyright status:  Done
3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the layout needs to be fixed.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I have merged some paragraphs and done some copyediting. I'd be please to have your views on any further improvements. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)