User talk:Susanlea

Network Analyzer
Your edits to the Network analyzer (electrical) article appear to just move pictures and try to adjust the formatting. I intend to revert them because they do not appear to add any content.Glrx (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I sure hope I'm replying to you correctly by editing here... Many apologies if not. I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia, and try as I might, I was unable to find another way to respond. The changes I made were not as simple as you have stated... I removed the photo of the HP8720 and added a photo of Agilent Technolgies N5245A. Agilent was divested from HP back in 2000 and Agilent owns all legacy HP products (such as the 8720). However, the 8720 is an Obsolete product by many years, and the photo that I added of the N5245A is from the current line of vector network analzyers offered by Agilent. The N5245A is also called a PNA-X and is an award-winning network analyzer for its various features and measurement capapbilities. Agilent Technologies would like to remove their obsolete product and add their most recent product to this page. Kind regards, Susanlea (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the photo switch. It doesn't matter that the pictured equipment is no longer manufactured; Wikipedia is not a place for advertising products. WP:SOAP The HP 8720 was a classic workhorse (but there is probably more useful information written about the older HP 8510). The picture of the N5245A is uninteresting; at least the HP 8720 has a Smith chart. On the whole, a picture of big box doesn't add much to the article no matter how recent the picture. Your edits emphasize Agilent over other brands (you inserted the Agilent photo above the existing R&S photo, and that does not suggest a neutral point of view). WP:POV WP:NPOV The divestment doesn't matter because it does not affect what a network analyzer is. HP and Agilent are already prominent in this article, but they are prominent for providing technical achievement and educational content. You should ask yourself, how does moving the pictures or changing the pictures further explain what a network analyzer is or does? From your statement above, you represent an official advertising position of Agilent rather than the interests of Wikipedia. If it's any consolation, I worked for HP before it split, so I'm favorable toward both HP and Agilent, but I also know engineers who worked at HP, went to other companies, and then bought R&S or Tek equipment because it was better. Glrx (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm a newbie, so please bear with me. Obviously R&S has some kind of "in" since the R&S analyzer is one of their newest models. And I guess you own this page? I looked at the history and it does appear that you created it. Good job, by the way. Would you be willing to let me replace the 8720 with the N5245A photo if it had a Smith chart on it?

Thanks! Susanlea (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. With all due respect, it seems a bit biased to me to let R&S have their latest and greatest and Agilent not be represented (not everyone knows that Agilent=HP). Admittedly, R&S and Agilent are the forerunners in network analysis these days. It only seems equitable to show off both company's latest wares on a page that talks about network analysis. And the N5245A is the workhorse replacement for the HP 8510. Maybe we used to work together... I've been with HP/Agilent 31 years.


 * The article is about network analyzers. It is not a forum for manufacturers to show of their latest and greatest.  Actually, the article would be fine with just the R&S glamour shot; the 8720 shot is already equity.  The article is not about the Hewlett Packard and Agilent Technologies split or the current competition with Rohde & Schwarz. It is not about equal time or equitable treatment for different companies. The illustrations should have their own purpose. Bias is not the issue; you will notice that Anritsu does not have any picture. Nor are there pictures of university or PC-based network analyzers. Agilent is prominently featured in the article -- and I've put in a lot of Agilent references.


 * I looked at the N5245A datasheet, and it does not seem to have any fundamental developments over the 8510. One difference is a digital IF, but that is common in even ordinary receivers now.


 * I am not the owner nor even the creator of the page. User:PerceptualChaos created the page on 7 December 2005 -- long before I started contributing to Wikipedia. I do not control the page.  WP:CONSENSUS  I am an active editor.


 * The current article has many problems and deficiencies. Those are what needs work. The external links are already running up against WP:DIRECTORY


 * Glrx (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)