Talk:Prototype filter/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Bramble  claw  x   18:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I will now review this for GA status.

This article does not meet criteria for "quick-fail", so I will now conduct a full review. I may have to put this on hold at some point in case I do not understand the more technical/mathematical sections.

Comments
1a.: The prose could do with a bit of work. I will try to sort that out tomorrow. Also, the advanced mathematics make me feel out of my comfort zone.
 * In the section "Alternative prototype", the paragraph "With image filters..." contains a sentence fragment that I don't know how to fix: "Constant k being those filters for which Z/Y is a constant." Could you please correct this?
 * You will need to explain to me what you want to fix. Constant k is introduced for the first time in the previous sentence.  The sentence under discussion clarifies this by defining the meaning of constant k.  The two sentences could be run together with a comma - would that solve your problem?  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe so.  Bramble  claw  x   19:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

3a.: The article's references are well written, but now, I'd like to point out that while you've explained what a prototype filter is and how it works, you have not mentioned examples of where they are used.  Bramble  claw  x   22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure that examples are meaningful here. The prototype filter is a design tool, not an end product.  Any (linear) filter design in any application at all can make use of prototypes.  Of course, any number of applications for filters (which are very numerous) could be mentioned, but this would be a bit contrived, none of them would actually be prototype filters, we could only say that the designer might have used protoypes in producing them.  The article does give specific examples in the figures of transformed filters.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  10:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I get it. Thanks.  Bramble  claw  x   15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is ok now, MoS looks good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This looks okay as well.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral, good.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, no edit wars evident
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am glad to pass this article, which meets all the GA criteria.  Bramble  claw  x   20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The article's prose is fairly well written, and the images help illustrate the article well. The only thing I have not checked is whether or not the formulae are correct, but I assume they are.  Bramble  claw  x   21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)