Talk:Naim NAIT/GA1

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * See prose review below.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Too overly focused on the individual incarnations. There is way too much text dedicated to this section, much of which is repeated in the Design and power and Construction sections.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The red background on three of the images is highly distracting.
 * I'll attenuate or change the colours. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is a highly technical article which reads better as from an AV engineering textbook. I am, by trade, both an IT professional and an AV engineer, and this article was overly technical by my standards. I don't think the average reader would be able to understand 80+% of the text. Read through my comments here and below. Make changes, or responses. Let me know and we can look at it further.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The red background on three of the images is highly distracting.
 * I'll attenuate or change the colours. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is a highly technical article which reads better as from an AV engineering textbook. I am, by trade, both an IT professional and an AV engineer, and this article was overly technical by my standards. I don't think the average reader would be able to understand 80+% of the text. Read through my comments here and below. Make changes, or responses. Let me know and we can look at it further.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a highly technical article which reads better as from an AV engineering textbook. I am, by trade, both an IT professional and an AV engineer, and this article was overly technical by my standards. I don't think the average reader would be able to understand 80+% of the text. Read through my comments here and below. Make changes, or responses. Let me know and we can look at it further.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * "(pronounced 'nate')" Where is this information from? Why wouldn't we use a better pronunciation key (see PRONOUNCE).
 * now removed  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Throughout the whole article, sometimes it is written NAIT, and sometimes Nait. Sometimes it is italicized; Sometimes its not. There needs to be consistency throughout. I believe that when you are talking about the whole line you are using NAIT, but specifically you use Nait. I'm not sure why that would be, though, as all of the products are lower case, so wouldn't the whole range be too?
 * done. I've de-italicised the product names throughout, which I would agree fits better with the MOS. The manufacturer styles is in caps, but some sources use title case. I have made them all upper case throughout to be consistent with the article title.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the Naim NAIT a product or a product line or a product range? Obviously it is all three, but from the first line in the lead, we should identify what it is in respect to the article.
 * it's both the product and the line, but I seem to have used "range" interchangeably to refer to a "line" too.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My overarching question about this, is the whole article about the produce or the line or both? The first sentence says its a product, but the article seems to be more about the line (with information about the product as well, of course). IMHO it should either say it is a product line or "both a product and product line" in the lead.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is almost directly repeated in the body, it should be better paraphrased in one place or the other.
 * I adjusted it  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

History

 * The first sentence should end at "appeal" and start a new sentence with "To accomplish this, they worked to create..."
 * done  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is with the quotations around "family", "Olive" and "chrome bumper," etc, throughout the article? These are not necessary.
 * Olive is official, chrome bumper is only a nickname followers coined to identify the older range, so should "chrome bumper" not be in quotes?.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...was launched ten years after the firm was founded." Include the year that it was founded, or the year it was launched. We need a point of reference.
 * done  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "two Olive incarnations" Is Olive an official actual name? If not, it should be lowercase.
 * Question. Does "on offer" mean the same as for sale? I know this is written in British English, but I wanted to make sure I understood.
 * yes, but now changed to "available"  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Design and power

 * "Naim insist..." This should have some tense, either insists or insisted (my preference).
 * It's British convention often to refer to entities as the collective "they", "Naim insist..." is mean to read as "they insist..." Do you still think it ought to be changed?  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I only think it should be changed to "insisted" because the tense later in the sentence is "published." Either way, this is a minor issue and will not prevent the article from being promoted.  TLSuda  (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Nait 5 is a redesign from the ground up." This is a cliche. Bleh. And it doesn't agree with the next sentence that says "Subtle...changes..."
 * working on it. It will be changed as part of the pruning/trimming.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Construction

 * "... and "discrete" – that is, with few..." replace "that is," with including or something similar.
 * "But as the Nait..." drop the but.
 * Remove the quotation marks around all of the one word adjectives. Bleh. Do this throughout the whole article.
 * all done  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Incarnations

 * This whole section is too verbose and each one would be more suited to a few paragraphs in the beginning of the manual. You are going to have to do some major culling, as in this article, there is WP:UNDUE weight to the individual items whereas the main article is about the whole product range. This section is overly focused.  One option may be to put the important parts of this information in a timeline table. This would cover the major changes from one to the previous one, and any important comments.
 * working on it  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the status?  TLSuda  (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I integrated comparative equipment data in tabular form and hacked away some of the equivalent prose. I think the other points have also been dealt with. I hope this addresses your concerns. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Subjective comments

 * My only complaint about this section is the section name. None of the comments are subjective, they're all objective.  This is more of a list of commentary and criticism of the product.
 * done. changed to "Reception"  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Final thoughts
Wow! The article looks great. I love the new table and it presents information in a much more user friendly way. You've done so much work bringing this article up (mostly prior to this WP:GAR) and it definitely shows. I'm very happy to promote this to good article! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all your efforts and helpful suggestions. Best regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)