Wikipedia:Peer review/Planar transmission line/archive1

Planar transmission line
I've listed this article with a view to putting it up for FA. I'm particularly interested in how this comes across to a general reader. Comments on the technical content are, of course, also welcome.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Came here from the electronics WP. I've never done a peer review, but here are some informal comments. I'm not a general reader, but don't have much knowledge of microwave electronics.
 * 1) The lede seems fairly technically sophisticated to me. It assumes folks already know something of transmission modes and electromagnetic propagation. That is probably hard to avoid. But a good picture could help. In the picture, from a first-time perspective, what are the light vs dark parts? Conductor vs substrate? What parts are the planar transmission line and what parts are not? Are the screws important? Why are wires mixed in with the planar patterns? What is the size of the wave relative to the size of planar elements? For a naive reader, it is kind of confusing. By contrast, the figures in the later sections are awesomely clear and well-labeled.
 * 2) Concerning the lede prose, there are a few ambiguous things. The transmission line article talks about types, this lede talks about forms and the rest of the article talks about formats. Are these all synonyms? If so, it would be better to stick to a single word or phrase for it.
 * 3) Is a simple interconnection the same as a normal interconnection? Maybe by normal, it is meant "low frequency", or "much smaller than a wavelength"? A single word of phrase would be better.
 * 4) Distributed circuit elements are talked about in the lede, but not in the rest of the article.
 * 5) The small print for experts at the end of lede seems out of place for a general audience introduction. Maybe put a one sentence version as a hatnote if this is intended to be a navigation aid, or put it somewhere else in the article?
 * 6) Some prose in the lede might be simplified. Insulator is a more common term than dielectric. "Substrate" might be defined. "the planar format fits in well with the manufacturing methods" could become "the planar format is easy to manufacture", etc.
 * 7) The Modes section could be made more accessible with some diagrams showing some modes, especially if those mode are superimposed with the planar circuit geometry.
 * Those are my first impressions. Making this more accessible to a general audience will be a challenge and I wish you good luck. --Mark viking (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review Mark. I'll try to incorporate as much of that as possible before going to FA.  I take your point on the lead image, but I am reluctant to replace it with something bland like just a length of line.  The reason I like this image is that it demonstrates the purpose of this technology with a real piece of equipment.  Something a simple straight line or diagram is not going to do.  I had a similar problem with a previous FA.  The solution arrived at was a sidebox with a very long description of the pictured device.  Although that passed FA, the sidebox came in for a lot of criticism afterwards from editors not understanding why it was there.  Basically, the description of that circuit (and the one in this article) is tangential to the subject of the article.  I used an analogy at the time which got me accused of being condescending.  At the risk of continuing to be condescending let me repeat the analogy here: one might illustrate the bolt (fastener) article with a picture showing bolts securing the cylinder head to the cylinder block in an engine.  The relevant on-topic feature is how the bolts secure these two parts.  It would be going entirely off-topic to start describing the workings of an internal combustion engine in that article. SpinningSpark 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You raise fair points about the figure and showing working planar circuits instead of a simplified textbook figure could well motivate a reader to learn more. I appreciate a good analogy and would never associate pedagogical impedance matching through analogy with condescension. I've never attempted an FA, but I suspect gaining consensus among reviewers is sometimes part of the challenge of FA runs. --Mark viking (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, by far the biggest challenge with articles like this at FA is getting anyone to take an interest at all. FA works differently from other reviews, it only gets past FA if multiple editors say they support it.  It's not like GA where you get "here's a list of things that need fixing" then it passes.  You're expected to have just about fixed everything already.  I hope you won't mind me pinging you when it gets put up. SpinningSpark 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be better to let a more experienced editor take the FA review lead, but I would be happy to contribute when the time comes. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would be taking the lead. I just need other editors to declare their support to get it promoted. SpinningSpark 11:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The first impression I get on revisiting this article is that the lede picture is neither clear nor pretty - as detailed above by Mark viking. Mark's remarks concerning the problems of elegant variation are also well observed, and Types would be clearer than Formats.  However, dielectric should be retained as it is the standard terminology (though perhaps followed by insulating material in brackets).
 * Parallel strip line is quite different from CPW (despite being coplanar), and so should appear under a separate heading.
 * (Now I'll go back and read the article more carefully). --catslash (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "...neither clear nor pretty..." Well, it does have a bit of the look of a home project. What would make an ideal lead image in your opinion? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 23:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)