Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element circuit/archive1

Distributed element circuit

 * Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is intended as the top-level article for electrical devices of this kind. Several sub-topics have previously been featured, most recently Planar transmission line. The article has been through GA, GOCE and Peer Review. Two sections have been added since peer review; "Taper" and "Fractals", the former to address a Peer Review comment, and both for issues of "broad coverage". SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson
A few comments: I'll see if I can come up with some more later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "After the war their use was limited to military, space, and broadcasting infrastructure, but improvements in materials science in the field soon led to broader applications." The end of this sentence reads like a teaser, could you be more specific as to what broader applications it led to?
 * Perhaps some greater contrast to conventional circuits in the lead would improve a layman's understanding.
 * I'm thinking side-by-side images of the two technologies might help with that. A picture is worth a thousand words.  Perhaps placed in the space to the right of the ToC? SpinningSpark 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That might work, although I'd like to also see a brief distinction (distributed vs. lumped, for example) between the two in the lead prose, if not an imposition. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done both issues SpinningSpark 17:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

After my concerns have been dealt with, and looking through the article again, I believe I can now support the promotion of this article. However, if you don't mind me asking, why are some of the images kept locally rather than on Commons? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Heaviside_face.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a "head and shoulders" derivative of File:Oheaviside.jpg which says it was sourced to Smithsonian Libraries and dates to c.1900. I've searched the Smithsonian site and can't find this as an individual image, but this collage includes the image and gives the copyright as "No Copyright - United States".  For the collage to be copyright free, every individual element in it must also be copyright free, no? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not necessarily under the tags we're currently using. If no further information on provenance can be found, you could use a tag that reflects the Smithsonian declaration. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What tag do you suggest? Basically, we are claiming public domain because Smithsonian Libraries say it is public domain.  I'm not sure there is a tag that says quite that. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PD-because Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from catslash
catslash (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The new Tapers section nicely rectifiers its former omission.
 * The new Fractals section is good - though (discounting log-periodic antennas), these structures seem quite rare in practice.
 * Yes, I wasn't sure how much these have found there way into manufacturing, hence the description "emerging field". They weren't around at all in my day, but they certainly seem to be "flavour of the month" now, with many publications on them in recent years.  I may have written a little too much on them for this article, sailing close to WP:UNDUE, but I think that is forgivable given that we don't have information on them anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a dielectric puck resonator in the local oscillator in the lede picture, and these components are mentioned in the History and Filters and impedance matching sections - and described as common. We also have an article about them.  Perhaps they merit a section Circuit components section.
 * Ok, I've added something. I din't think we could describe dielectric resonators without mentioning cavity resonators as well.  I'd like to cover them both in the same section but I don't know a generic term that could be used as the heading. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was quick. catslash (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly there should be some mention of devices with distributed loss, such as attenuators and matched terminations.
 * Ok, I've put something in, but I've kept it minimal – I'm not terribly convinced that they are used much as part of a DE circuit. No argument that they are distributed elements, but they are mostly a thing apart from DE circuit designs. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you always save this stuff for the FA rather than Peer Review? Seriously, I'll take a look. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am aware that I repeatedly come up with more stuff for you to do. catslash (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm always grateful that anybody reviews these articles at all, so thanks. I think I've covered everything you raised now. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. However, it should be checked that the text is clear to a reader not already familiar with the subject. catslash (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
I have made an edit to the history section to explain the history of radar and its application to this topic. I'll return for a read over. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution. I've hacked that about quite substantially.  I've changed the source format to be compatible with the established style and fixed the loss of text-source integrity caused by you moving a sentence to another paragraph.  I've changed the source from the BBC website page to a book source (which I think is preferable here) and it also provides a source for a key fact you missed – that the move to a smaller size allowed the fitting of radar to aircraft.  I've removed a couple of facts that failed verification; the Harford source does not give the operation wavelength/frequency of the magnetron.  I think all numerical data must have a source and the exact frequency is not essential to have in this article anyway.  The Levy & Cohen source does not discuss, or even mention, magnetrons anywhere so we can't really use that source to say directly that the magnetron led to DE filter development. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mark viking
The article looks like it is in great shape. As a physicist who does not work in this area, the prose was easy to read and the jargon seems in general to be about as simplified as it can get. I have just a few minor comments/issues: -- 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should have a short description for the mobile viewers.
 * Done. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first para of the circuit modeling section, "the quantities are considered to be distributed in space" seems vague--it isn't some generic quantity that is distributed, it is an electrical element that is distributed.
 * The Electrical element article says "Electrical elements are conceptual abstractions representing idealized electrical components, such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors" -- in which case distributed element seems like an oxymoron, akin to distributed point-mass. This leaves me unsure as to whether element in this context is a mass noun or a count noun.  Therefore, I would prefer quantities, properties, attributes or simply capacitance and inductance to elements. catslash (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If distributed element is an oxymoron, then the whole Distributed element circuit article is in trouble :-) More seriously, one of the tasks of this article is to explain what is meant by a distributed element. Hopefully by the time the reader gets to the modeling section, they at least have an informal idea of what a distributed element is. If elements is unacceptable, however, properties is better than quantities--resistance, capacitance, etc., are properties of the element, not quantities of the element. -- 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree we don't have an oxymoron problem here. We certainly don't want to be writing ...distributed elements are elements that are distributed in space... I've changed "the quantities" to "these properties" which I think addresses the comments. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Minkowski island" doesn't need to be a red link--it is illustrated in Fractal_antenna.
 * I've created the redirect. However, there is no description on that page, only the image. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of taste, but in an article that is pretty much math-free, the S-matrix in the Circulators section, without much explanation of its meaning, sticks out as unnecessary. You might ditch the matrix and simply assert that the circulator is non-symmetric and leave the details to the main Circulator article.
 * The lack of maths is entirely deliberate, which I think is right for a subject top-level article. The exception for the circulator is also entirely deliberate.  The matrix plainly illustrates the lack of symmetry (and hence, reciprocity) in a way that words cannot.  It is being used as an illustration more than some actual formal maths.  In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate here, although I wouldn't fight anyone trying to remove it. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree the lack of maths is a real strength of the article. Yes, a mathematician will recognize this as a permutation matrix and a physicist will recognize this as a sort of conceptual S-matrix that describes transitions among classes of states. But for those readers not familiar with these topics--scattering theory, matrices, matrix symmetry, etc., I suspect this array of 0's and 1's will be virtually meaningless. Nonetheless, this is a a suggestion for improvement, not a showstopper problem. -- 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. My first three points were well addressed. The last point is an unresolved difference of opinion on the expected pedagogical level of the reader; however, less mathematically sophisticated readers are free to ignore the matrix and the qualitative reasoning in the prose surrounding it is clear enough. I am thus happy to support promotion of this article to FA status. Well done! -- 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap
I reviewed this article at GAN, and thought at the time that it was well-constructed, informative on a topic that I barely knew existed, interesting, well-illustrated, well-cited, and just sufficiently mathematical to show that it was well-founded. The remarkable bibliography demonstrates the depth of knowledge of the subject, and the history, going back to Heaviside, is both informative and fascinating. As I'd expected, the FA reviewers have applied the usual polish, and I'd say this was now an exceptionally fine article, indeed exactly the kind of thing we should be advertising on our front page. I'm delighted to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links to sources all working per the ext. links checker tool
 * Formats
 * Ref 8: add pp.
 * Ref 18: why "pages" not pp.?
 * Ref 24: requires pp. not p.
 * Ref 32: Bakshi & Bakshi page range is not clear
 * Ref 34: requires pp. not p.
 * Ref 53: add pp.
 * Ref 55: Heaviside 1887 requires page reference
 * Ref 62: gives chapter no. but not page ref
 * Ref 69: Matthaei et al. 1964 requires page ref
 * Ref 71: likewise Barrett & Barnes
 * ISBN formats: these should be consistent, in either their 10-digit or 13-digit forms. In general you avoid the insertion of dashes, but see Ishi 1995
 * Alphabetic sequence of Bibliography: Bahl should precede Bakshi; Natarajan should precede Nguyen
 * Be consistent in inclusion of publisher locations for book sources. You generally omit these, but see Heaviside 1925
 * Cohen 2015: check the ISBN. No matches found at WorldCat, Google books etc.
 * Heaviside 1887: OCLC links to this, rather than to the source article

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality and reliability: the list of sources is very extensive and seems to my inexpert eye to have the appropriate range and weight. Someone with subject expertise could perhaps judge better whether the list meets the appropriate criteria for quality and reliability. I'd be surprised if it doesn't.


 * On the Bakshi & Bakshi source (ref 32), the pages are numbered in that form (chapter hyphen page). The page range is thus 3-68 to 3-70.  It makes sense if one takes note of the type of dash used.  The confusion is unavoidable because of the pagination used in the source, but will be immediately clear to anyone actually reading the source.
 * On Fano & Lawson (ref 62). All the sources that form a chapter of a book where each chapter is by named authors are cited to the chapter rather than a page range. This makes sense to me as it is the chapter by that author that is being cited, not a page range of the entire book.
 * On Matthaei at al. (ref 69), the entire book is being cited. It is just a courtesy ref; "The group's work was published[69] in a landmark 1964 book..."  The ref at the end of the sentence verifies the significance of the book, this ref just gives the details of the book itself.
 * ditto on Barrett and Barnes (ref 71)
 * ISBNs, I've changed these all to 10-digit, I hope that's ok. The inconsitency came about because a previous FA commented on my use of 10-digit ISBNs.  I ran away with the idea (probably incorrectly) that 10-digit was deprecated so started using 13-digit from that point, but this article was already well underway at that time so ended up with a mix.
 * Cohen ISBN. Gbooks does return that ISBN, but it doesn't match the ISBN printed on the book's imprint page so I've changed it anyway.
 * Heaviside 1887, yes, the OCLC link is to the entire collection of The Electrician journal. I have never seen a library index of any kind that links the individual articles for this journal.  It would be useful if there was one because Heaviside's writings in The Electrician are referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles.  However, I have added a convenience link to a site with free-to-view copies of the journal where the article can be read.
 * Evreything else in your comments is fixed I think. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  17:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)