Talk:Analog ear

General discussion of article
I prodded this article with the note: "No references; it's very unclear what this article is supposed to be about." My biggest confusion is that the phrase "analog ear," the ostensible subject of the article, isn't used until halfway through the article, after four incredibly dense paragraphs about ears, and models of ears, in general. (I now see that the "explanation" of what an analog ear is comes in the fourth paragraph, but it's only described there as the "analog model.") Oddly, the original version of this article was much clearer, beginning with "The analog ear is a multi-section electric circuit that represents outer, middle, and inner parts of the human ear." The lengthy "introduction" was added a month later, along with a lot of other information, by an anonymous IP, with the edit summary: "Major re-write by original contributor."

My prod was removed with the comment (in the edit summary) that "I don't understand it" isn't a valid reason for deletion. I concede that, but it seems like "Unreadably dense" is a valid reason to deem an article unsatisfactory, regardless of its length. My impulse is to try to hack most of the article out to make it clearer, before possibly bringing it to AFD. But I also wanted to open the Talk page to see if anyone else has thoughts about this article, in its past, current or potential format. Propaniac 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who deprodded it; I agree it needs a complete rewrite (tagged as such). A lot of the content could probably be split between Microphone and Speech recognition as well. (From the tone of the article, it has a whiff of a copyvio as well, but in the absence of any evidence I'm WP:AGFing on that one) —  irides cent   (talk to me!)  12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a good start, but something
I just noticed that article. Since I'm a big fan of John L. Stewart's early ear modeling work, and since I've done some work in this field myself, I might try to edit it. My own work might be regarded in the light of a WP:COI, so if anyone cares, let me know and I'll back off and let others decide what to do about it. Here are some likely sources that should clearly establish notability of the topic at least; and here are more using the term "analog cochlea" as an alternative; and some about my version. Dicklyon 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)