Talk:Transfer function matrix/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello, I started a GA review of this article. One question I always like to ask early is: is there an editor who could / would be involved in the GA review process on behalf of the article? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I try to be "middle of the road" regarding being tough or easy. One area where I'm a bit tougher than average is empathy for a typical reader, but I think that that helps the article. :-)  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello North8000, thank you for reviewing. That is a sensible question to ask, it is very annoying when people nominate an article but don't, or can't, take part in the review.  Rest assured you will get prompt responses from me. SpinningSpark 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool! I got a fast start on the easy stuff, I'll be a bit slower on the next stages.   North8000  (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still working, I haven't gone away.  North8000  (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Question: I have finished enough of a review of this article to determine that, as is, I would pass it as a Good Article. As I mentioned, I'm always thinking with particular concern / empathy for an appropriate reader. In this case I think that that would be a person with some knowledge about but not fluency in the fields referred to in this article. At the top of the list of what I'm thinking about is linear algebra, followed by transforms (e.g LaPlace) followed by a few electrical/electronic technical principles and other technical principles closely related to that. IMHO, for that appropriate reader, the ideal article would "teach" the topic, or lead them to an understanding of it. IMHO while this article provides a lot of information and concepts about the topic, it doesn't do that. IMHO, for articles in Wikipedia on abstract and difficult to "teach" topics, this is the Wikipedia norm, and so not a reason to fail the article. So, my question to you is: do you prefer that I pass the the article now,, or would you wish to enter into an interactive / joint effOrt and somewhat  "critiquing" process to get it closer to or to what IMHO I described? So, if you'd rather not do that, or disagree with what I described, I will pass the article now. If we enter into that process, and you later decide that process, or you decide that you disagree with me, then I will pas the article then. Either way is 100% fine for this article which IMHO meets Wikipedia Good Article standards as it is today. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take part in improving the article and making it more accessible. However, if your comments are extensive, and not directly covered by the GA criteria, then it would probably be best to do this as a separate exercise outside the GA process.  I have to take issue with your claim that an "ideal article would 'teach' the topic".  That is in direct contradiction of the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy: .  I am for making articles easily understandable, but it is problematic to try and explain everything that a reader may want explaining.  The problem is where does one stop?  To understand Laplace transforms, for instance, one must first have an understanding of calculus.  To understand calculus one must first have an understanding of basic algebra.  To understand algebra, one must first have an understanding of the operations of arithmetic, and to understand that, one must first master the principles of counting.  To say nothing of Fourier analysis, complex numbers, phasors, and graphing a function, all of which would usually be taught as a preliminary before tackling Laplace transforms.  To teach a subject, one starts with the fundamentals and then builds upon them with ever more advanced topics.  Wikipedia articles, of necessity, cannot work like that.  We cannot force readers to read the subject matter in a prescribed order.  The correct approach, in my opinion, is to first give the reader the credit that they know what they are doing when they typed that topic into the search box and give them the information on that topic.  We cannot reasonably put all the preliminary material in every article that mentions Laplace transfoms, but we can give links to appropriate pages if the reader need to understand an unfamiliar term.  In much the same way, a textbook might refer back to a previous chapter on a topic already covered. SpinningSpark 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I probably should have only used the word "inform" without "teach"; the latter covers lots of possibilities....IMO depending on the details some of which fall under "inform / explain"  and some of which fall under what Wikipedia isn't.  I'm going to pass the article (may take a couple days to handle the details) and perhaps some discussions after that might be of interest. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well-written

 * Passes this criteria. IMO meets the Wikipedia norm for a GA of this type.  North8000  (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * Passes this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

 * Passes this criteria  North8000  (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

 * Passes this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

 * Passes this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

 * Has 4 images. One is public domain and three have suitable licensing. North8000  (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article
Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article.  North8000  (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)