Talk:Network synthesis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dh.wp (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this article, User:SpinningSpark! This GA nomination is being reviewed. Dh.wp (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

One example of such violation is: "Network synthesis was a great leap forward in circuit design.", I will review this later, although I think this may violate the section "Words that may introduce bias" of words to watch.

Note: If there are any issues with this decision, please contact me via my talk page. I am human, and I may misunderstand some phrases.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

Note: Checked for plagiarism and I have not found any..

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Note: Will reread for editorial bias.

Note: If there are any issues with this decision, please contact me via my talk page. I am human, and I may misunderstand some phrases.

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Note: On hold for 7 days for corrections to issues I brought up.

@Dh.wp: I would stand by the claim that network synthesis "was a great leap forward". Belevitch, in his History of Circuit Theory puts it front and centre. Louis Weinberg in Network Analysis and Synthesis says "This theory [network synthesis] is more general, flexible, and sophisticated than the image-parameter theory". That latter source is not currently in the article, but it can be if you want. Weinberg does go on to say "Its very sophistication, however, has contributed to its slow adoption, or even neglect, by engineers who could profit greatly from its use..." The slow adoption is not something I have covered in this article because it is more relevant to, and already covered in, Network synthesis filters. Basically, heavy computation of sophistacted mathematics is required to use the theory. Weinberg is writing in the early sixties when computing power was unavailable or prohibitively expensive, so engineers stuck with existing designs that while not ideal, were good enough. In the 1970s I was an undergraduate on industrial placement and got assigned the task of calculating the coefficients of numerous Bessel functions for filter design. After several days slaving away at that, I was overjoyed to discover that Stanford had published tables of component values which could be used directly. Everything was done with tables and slide rules in those days, desktop computing was yet to come. Nowadays its not a problem, at least for the popular designs – one just downloads an app which gives the answer straight away.

The image-parameter theory mentioned by Weinberg was the standard method of designing filters prior to network synthesis. By contrast, the calculations required are on the back-of-an-envelope level. Weinberg describes its shortcomings thus: "The basic assumption of the image-parameter theory, namely, the analogy with a transmission line terminated in its characteristic impedance, is only approximately satisfied. As a result, the exact response of a design is often not known until after the design has been completed." Going from a system based on guesswork and experience to one that produces exact analytic results is surely a leap forward, at least from a theoretical perspective. SpinningSpark 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original reviewer user:Dh.wp, who is a new user, seems to have disappeared off Wikipedia so I am asking for a second opinion so this can be closed out. SpinningSpark 17:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just a matter of checking the article against the last two GA criteria, or does the review have to be started anew?

Aside from the GA criteria, I have a couple of observations on the content of the article, but was saving these for peer-review, not wishing to disrupt the GA process. catslash (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catslash: I encouraged Spinningspark to ask for a second opinion on their talk page when I noticed the review was stale. Given that and my newness to the process I thought it better to let someone else handle the review. I believe the most appropriate course of action is to contact user:Dh.wp on their talk page stating your intention to close out this review in a week's time if they do not respond. After that, double check all of their work and add in your new comments and pass/hold/fail as usual after giving user:Dh.wp at least a week to respond. I do not believe you need to go back over everything, but it is best to double check the work to some extent. Thanks for your help! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catslash, for an article that might eventually be heading for FA, the sooner issues are raised the better as far as I am concerned. If the content issues you want to raise concern missing areas that should be covered, then that is a GA issue (criterion 3a). SpinningSpark 13:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some observations on the article (with no attempt to link them with GA criteria)

~~The word synthesisation in the lede is a little jarring.~~

Done SpinningSpark 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Goals/Approximation section says Network synthesis provides a method of obtaining a rational function..., whereas Synthesis techniques says Synthesis begins with a rational function... - which seems to be a contradiction.

Done SpinningSpark 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Applications section says ...the inerter, which is analogous to the electrical capacitor... - but that depends on the choice of mechanical–electrical analogy. In the more intuitive impedance analogy, the inerter corresponds to an inductor.

I know (I should do, I created both those articles) but I don't think a discussion of different analogies is relevant here. This article is following the analogy used by Smith. The mobility analogy is pretty much the universal standard analogy in mechanical systems and it is notable that Chen & Smith do not even bother to state which analogy they are using (or even acknowledge that other analogies exist).

On intuitiveness, that is a matter of opinion. It depends on the point of view you are looking at it from. When considering the physical structure of mechanical filters, the impedance analogy is not the most intuitive. The mistaken idea that the impedance analogy is the "right" one stems entirely from the misnomer electromotive force. SpinningSpark 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be mentioned that as the synthesised circuits have a particular topology, analysis followed by synthesis will in general not recover the original circuit.

That's an interesting philosophical point, and is of course true. It follows immediately from the claim, already in the article, that a given rational function does not have a unique realisation. The problem is going to be finding a source that directly states that. Why would anyone have a practical reason for doing it? I suppose minimisation of a circuit could be a reason, but since NS lacks a generalised minimisation technique it is unlikely to be of help. SpinningSpark 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Brune synthesis section might be improved by outlining the rationale and overall strategy before going into details. Specifically:

Non-PR immitances are sources of unlimited energy and so can't possibly be realized by passive circuits.
The aim is therefore to iteratively subtract poles or zeros from the target (PR) function, leaving a residual lower-degree PR immitance to be synthesized.
Subtracting poles or zeros that are on the iω axis always leaves a residual immitance that is PR.
Subtracting poles or zeros that are to the left of iω axis would leave a residual immitance that could be non-PR and therefore not realizable.
A special procedure -the Brune cycle- is therefore needed to reduce a function that has no critical frequencies on the iω axis, in order to ensure that the residual immitance is PR.

The first point, that only PRFs can be realised, is generally applicable to all methods and is stated earlier in the article. For the rest, there is already a secion "Broad outline of method". It is already stated that the remainder is PRF. Stating this in quite the way you want to state it requires a source and none of the sources I have to hand can help. SpinningSpark 16:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

catslash (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This The Brune synthesis is canonical, that is, the number of elements in the final synthesised network is equal to the number of arbitrary coefficients in the impedance function. cites Wing, but surreptitiously corrects him by inserting the word arbitrary. As discussed by Brune (p73 & p112) there may exist realizations with fewer elements, if the coefficients in the impedance function are not independent. catslash (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting result and I'd previously overlooked it. The trouble is, I can't find any independent sources discussing it. Everyone I've looked at (including the great Tellegen) seems to be perfectly happy to make a statement similar/equivalent to that of Wing. I'm extremely reluctant to base any addition entirely on a primary source. I fear the point is just a bit too obscure to be in this article. At most, it belongs in a standalone article on the Brune method. And as you point out, it does not actually make the current wording of the article incorrect. SpinningSpark 14:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

catslash, I think that, in this case, any new reviewer needs to check the entire article against the GA criteria and if they pass (or fail) it, do so based entirely on their own findings. Asking for a second opinion is sometimes done in cases where a review has been abandoned or was attempted by someone who doesn't understand how GAN works, and a new reviewer is needed to go over everything. (While it is good that Footlessmouse has been giving stalled reviews like this a bump, their advice is not ideal in this situation.) Given the complexity of the topic, it's important to have someone who understands the article and the criteria.

This was a review by a completely new Wikipedian whose understanding of the GA criteria and how articles should be checked in a review cannot be assumed to be adequate (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#First time, some questions., where Dh.wp posts to the GAN talk page after completing the above in 30 minutes—concern was expressed there about their work on this review and they never responded to the reply despite the ping—their final edit on Wikipedia to date was 41 minutes after opening the review). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Notes from Footlessmouse

Just a few notes from me, trying to be as critical as I can to give any suggestions that might be usefull, great job overall! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

I think you should use harvnb for the references so that it actually links to the sourcse in bibliography and readers don't have to search each time to find which reference is being referred to, it is rather disruptive. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation templates are evil SpinningSpark 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In references where there are PDFs, please link to the DOI if available and provide (legal) free PDF URL as an free access link. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never been a fan of dois. I don't think they achieve what people think they achieve (and I'll happily explain my thinking outside this review if asked). In any case, there is only one pdf directly linked in the article and I can't find a doi for it. I'm not sure, but there may be some that are not directly linked (going through an html page) but I thought that was the preferred practice. Users who have a slow connection are not forced to download the whole pdf to view the abstract and publcation details etc. SpinningSpark 14:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:W2W, especially "however", which is used eleven times in the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed/reworded a few, but the word is not forbidden and in most instances is fulfilling a real function. I've not addressed the two in the "Goals" section since you have made other comments on that that will lead to more extensive changes. SpinningSpark 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goals

Rewrite the whole thing as encycopedic prose, parts of it seem more like a borchure or intro to how-to guide to me. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Goals to Background and begin with the discussion of electrical impedence and, if you must, have a sentence at the end that sums up saying that network sythesis addresses these issues. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the form of a rational function of the complex frequency variable s" => drop variable. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give impedance denotion a choppy sentence on its own, work it in as a subclause to one of the other sentences. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Question Is there no citation for Cauer's thesis, which is named in the text? Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is there, but with a slightly different translation of the German title to that in the article body. I've now made them consistent. SpinningSpark 16:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work on choppy sentences like the second and third ones in the third paragraph and the last two of the same. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2008? That doesn't seem necessary, it's so outdated for an "as of" figure. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that unnecessary? It is a claim that could go out of date and MOS:RELTIME calls for an absolute time to be given to prevent that. This is especially true here given the resurgence of interest in the last decade. It is always possible that a major step forward has been made recently but is currently unknown to Wikipedia editors. It is 2008 because that is the most recent source (Wing) I had that makes a definite statement. I've updated it to 2010 based on the Kalman source, although Kalman's statement is not quite as clear as Wing's. SpinningSpark 16:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other

First sentence of Applications needs a citation to itself, it is a contestable statement, just like the second. They can be combined so as to only use one citation if one covers both. Either way, too short for a paragraph, combine with another. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for encyclopedic tone, words to watch, choppy sentences, and stub paragraphs. Same for the Active and digital realisations section. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Just responding to the second opinion tag. I see it has a few already so just thought I would add just add a single general comment as a layperson. The body starts with goals, but doesn't actually tell us what a network synthesis is. I feel that should be the first thing I read in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atually, the article starts with the lead, and the first two sentences of the lead define the topic of the article, so I don't really see the problem here. The goals section describes what network synthesis does, and thus expanding on the lead regarding what it is. Network sysnthesis is answering those three questions. SpinningSpark 10:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead stands alone as a separate summary of the article; it should not contain any info that is not already in the body. It needs a short intro into Network Synthesis in the body, preferably at the start. AIRcorn (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is one of the responders here officially taking on the responsibility of this review? Because at the moment I am a little confused. SpinningSpark 14:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just offering a second opinion as it was tagged for one. I was not intending to take over this and would rather not for a few reasons. Happy to help Footlessmouse with any questions they might have though. AIRcorn (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Footlessmouse

Hi, I have notified original reviewer of my intention to resolve this review in the coming days. Nom left a message on 20 October 2020 asking if they intend to close the review, if no response is made, on or after 27 October 2020 we can close it out. As another editor has deferred to me, I will go back through and review the article for GA criteria. I have provided some notes above, some of which were already responded to and not all of which are required under GA criteria. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark, sorry for taking so long. I would not have normally volunteered to review this article as it is too far outside my expertise and required a lot of background info. I think the sources are great, there is no original research or synthesis problems. For the most part, it is clear. The biggest thing that needs to happen now is that there is some kind of summary in the "Goals" or "Background" section that better explains what it is. You can copy and paste from the lead and reword just a little bit to make it flow. The lead summarizes the whole article and for a GA, should not have info that isn't represented in the body. The first section after the intro should expand on the topic for the readers who read down. There is already a history and applications section, the background section just supplements that by providing a more detailed, yet lay-person understandable overview of the topic, ignoring applications and history. Outside of that, the images are good, it is stable, and it is neutral. The only problem with sourcing is that "it was a great leap forward" should have some kind of in-line reference directly following it. I really think it pretty much passes outside of that. I will go back over grammar and everything again in the next couple of days, but nothing jumped out at me, so I think it is good. Great job, by the way, creating and maintaining such a technical article and improving it to this point. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: My turn to apologise for the late reply. I took a break from Wikipedia and am now working through a month of watchlist backlog. But I will get on to this soon if you can wait just a bit longer. SpinningSpark 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, take your time. I myself am trying to take a step back for a little while, but I will be here when you are ready. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: I think this is ready for another look. I have entirely reworked the Goals section into an Overview section and substantially improved the referencing. Hopefully, this is nearer to what you want. SpinningSpark 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All problems I have raised were addressed above. There are several things I would reword, but none of which rises to the level of hampering the review. I think the improvements are great and I believe it passes everything now: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All complaints addressed, prose is clear and spelling and grammar are correct

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Complies with the GA MOSs, including a summarizing lead lead, only one inline-list that is appropriate, and complies with MOS:LAYOUT
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference style is consistent within the article, provides a long list of references that complies with MOS

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Inline citations to RS provided, controversial statements and statistics are all cited inline.

C. It contains no original research:
No original research or synthesis, is verifiable through RS

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No copyvio problems and I do not see any close paraphrasing. Earwig's found no major complaints for the article outside article titles
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The main aspects of the topic, as provided by the sources, are addressed by the article

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The article stays focused on the topic and avoids unnecessary detail.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Neutral
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No stability problems, the review has also been open for a while and there has not been any edit waring.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Fifteen total images, all with appropriate copyright tags, mostly CC-BY, but some that are expired. It seems as though Spinningspark made most of the illustrations themselves. Nice job!

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Contains three photos of scientists and twelve illustrations of circuits, all directly related to the topic and its history. All the images have appropriate captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass GA review. Great job!! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work Spinningspark! Congratulations on passing GA! I recommend going through a peer review if you wish to try out for WP:FA in the future, there are a few spots that could be worded slightly better, in my opinion, and a lot of extra rules for articles there that don't have to be met here. It is well on its way, though. Great job! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]