# Talk:Double-tuned amplifier

This review is transcluded from Talk:Double-tuned amplifier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 23W, thanks for reviewing.  I'll try to respond promptly to any issues that are raised.  Regards, SpinningSpark 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


### Comments
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Judging from the number of characters in the body, the lead should be shortened to one or two paragraphs (WP:LEADLENGTH).
Don't know if this is standard for technically-dense articles or what, but it would be nice to have references for every paragraph in the typical circuit section. (I can understand having the one in the analysis section, what with all the diagrams.)
That's all I have. Well done. Can't say I'm an expert at signal processing, but the prose is really nice, and it's probably up to snuff with WP:TECHCONTENT guidelines. On hold for 14 days. 23W 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

On the lead length, I'm not seeing in the guideline where it says this lead is too long; it meets the criterion of "no longer than four paragraphs" by only having three paragraphs.  In any case, arbitrary rules are not usually helpful.  The first paragraph introduces and defines the subject.  The second covers the central importance of strength of coupling to this design.  The third paragraph places this tuning scheme in its proper context compared to other tuning schemes.  Are you suggesting that one of these areas should not be covered in the lead?
Suppose not; I'll keep this in mind.
On the description of the typical circuit, the reference is placed before the final paragraph simply because that part is not found in the source.  The approach I have taken with this description is to highlight the parts that differ from a standard common emitter amplifier circuit.  Those readers with a little electronics knowledge may well have come across the basic circuit but struggle to relate it to this circuit.  The source, in fact, does not even mention that it is a common emitter circuit, let alone describe that in detail.  Typical of textbooks, it makes the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the more basic material and leaps straight in to discussing the relevant parts of the circuit (those parts redrawn in the analysis section) relating to tuning.  So the choices for a way forward are 1) delete most of the description and do a disservice to our readers by making the circuit less understandable, 2) indulge in a little WP:SYNTH and add a reference for a basic CE amp in order to get the expected number of little blue numbers, or 3) take the view that this material is "not likely to be challenged" and thus does not require a ref.  I suggest the 3rd option, the very fact that the source does not think it necessary to point out to students the function of the various bias components or the nature of the basic circuit topology shows that what I have written will be instantly obvious to anyone "skilled in the art".  WP:V does not require, nor has it ever required, that every statement carry a reference.  I know that it has become habitual for reviewers to ask for that, but it is simply not a necessary part of the requirements. SpinningSpark 21:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying all this. I'll try to keep both points in mind for reviewing more technical articles. Passing now, since a second through showed no errors. 23W 02:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for reviewing.  I know its hard to review specialist articles, but don't let that stop you raising things that seem to be an issue in the future; technical writers are just as capable of writing rubbish as anyone else. SpinningSpark 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the core of this article is more the double tuned circuit than the amplifiers that were used in the first historical application of coupled resonant circuits: selective RF amplifiers. In this article the electronic amplifiers are only in the background and do not really appear in the description and computation. On the other side as Witricity has reintroduced the concept of double tuned circuits for wireless power transfer, it could be a good idea to present the subject in an unified manner. Besides some articles now consider the importance of the coupling index (the original name for kQ) for both capacitive and inductive resonant power transfer (see for instance: akshi, Uday A.; Godse, Atul P., Electronic Circuit Analysis, Technical Publications, 2009. It could be a way to clear the mess of the awful pictures introduced in Wikipedia content Resonant inductive coupling that falsely suggest that at resonance field lines are somehow concentrated (fields distribution depends only on charges and currents distributions and are not frequency dependent, at least around sharp resonances). I suggest that links to this page and references to kQ importance should be added to all pages concerning couplings combined to the resonance amplification mechanism.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am copying this over from my talk page to get a consensus on the change. After this, I am leaving the conversation. Thanks.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 

This is the third time you have added an unacceptable short description to this article, and the second time you have added exactly the same thing.  Please don't edit war over this. SpinningSpark 20:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn’t remember that I had already tried to put in a short description to this article. Can you put one one in since I obviously don’t know what it is? The article is a GA and we are trying to put in a SD for every article and this one keeps coming up in the list. Someone else is likely to come along and attempt it too.  Akrasia25 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I did (and a shorter one than yours), but it immediately got overwritten with the same inane stuff by somebody else.  I'm not saying it is not a tuned amplifier.  It is.  I'm saying that is worthless as a short description.  The article title already tells you that. SpinningSpark 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. Your SD edit is not actually being published (?!). So it still shows up as being empty and I come along with my list and see an empty SD.  I can publish it for you but "tuned amplifier with transformer coupling between the amplifier stages" is 70 characters long and SD should be less than 40 characters. What would you like it to say?--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
That "somebody else" was me, and you're right, it was rather inane now that I think about it. However, your proposal "Amplifier tuned on both sides of the stage coupling transformers" at 64 characters wasn't any better than the one originally inserted by Akrasia25. The solution here is to insert "{{Short description|none}}". Some articles simply don't need one when their title is self-explanatory. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Well "none" is better than the useless "tuned amplifier" from my point of view.  In point of fact, my replacement was six bytes shorter than the 70-byte oringinal so was better even if still not acceptable.  I can get that down to "Amplifier tuned both sides of coupling transformers" which is 51 bytes.  That's about as short as it gets and still saying something meaningful.  I'd also point out that the 40-bytes is not a firm rule and that when truncated you will be left with "Amplifier tuned both sides of coupling t..." which might be just enough to give the reader the idea. SpinningSpark 13:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)