Talk:Nakamichi Dragon/GA1

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this article over the coming week. So far, this article looks like a remarkable piece of work. Thank you for all the effort you put in it and congratulations on achieving GA status on ruwiki. I will "Enter the Dragon" and see what needs to be addressed, if anything, for this article to be promoted. MSG17 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Prose and MOS
The article has very engaging prose - in fact, some of the best I've seen in a Wikipedia article. The writing strikes a good balance between comprehensively explaining the subject and its background and keeping it understandable. Footnotes are also used well to provide additional information. I don't see any MOS violations, but I will do a more thorough analysis later into this. I do see one issue:
 * It was not just another precision recording machine: it was a universal player that could play almost any cassette recorded by almost any other deck and consistently make the best of it. This is too promotional/subjective for regular prose. The sentence should be modified the sentence to indicate this was the Dragon's reputation, or quotes should be used. (Edit: Actually, I am having second thoughts on this considering how clearly this is defined as the zenith of cassette player tech.)

Broadness, focus, neutrality and stability
The article has stellar coverage of the deck and explains the technical background very well without going into too much details or straying from the topic. No edit warring to be seen. Passed on all of these fronts. I will look at neutrality later, considering that this deck is apparently one of the pinnacles of cassette tape technology.
 * It was the one. The reference that persisted for 11 or 12 years, until the technology died out in the 1990s. This explains coverage in the press. Source base is an order of magnitude larger than that of the number two contender. So even diehard fans of European makers like yours truly have to bow in awe. Retired electrician (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations and refs
The article makes good use of properly formatted inline citations throughout. I am not an audio expert, so I will evaluate the reliability of the sources used later. Right now, I only havea couple comments:
 * There is a block of seven citations for the first sentence of the "Overall ratings" section, which makes it quite cluttered. I would recommend bundling the citations, or reorganizing the text to break up the cluster.
 * Also, although this isn't necessary, it would be greatly appreciated if you could translate the titles of non-English sources and include them in the "trans-title" parameter. I already added a romanized title to the Russian source using the "title" and "script-title" parameters.
 * Did both, Retired electrician (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! After some research, I see the you have used some very reliable sources for this topic. Refs are passed.

Images
The article makes beautiful use of images and diagrams, not only settling at merely pictures of the deck but also giving a clear visual representation of azimuth that will aid readers in understanding the concept. Definitely passed here! Most images are tagged for free use. I will look at the patent images and make sure no claims have been lodged for them.

Copyright
Earwig doesn't seen any copvios. I don't see anything that indicates any copying. Passed.

After looking over the references, doing more research, and a quick prose edit, I am satisfied with this article. I will pass it and update its status. I even think it could make a good FA candidate, although I would recommend getting a peer review or asking another user with more experience with cassette decks to look it over first. MSG17 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)