# Talk:Rega Planar 3

"iconic"? "household name"?. This reads like it was written by the company's PR department. Maybe in the audiophile world it's well known, but few UK households today even have a record player. I've certainly never heard anyone refer to this brand.  
And who is "Gandy"? And there needs to be some explanation of why the opinions of Jim Clements et al (whoever they are) are significant. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
agreed, this "iconic" brand name has 0 recognition in the UK. technics or vestax would be recognised as standards of quality and use, but no dj i've asked has even heard of rega, perhaps 20 years ago it was known in the UK, but now no way. this article looks like a PR job, needs editing for NPOV188.220.151.59 (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

PR? Pick up any hi-fi magazine and you'll see whenever Rega's mentioned, the association with the record deck is immediately established, so it's iconic in that context. I'm writing about esoteric pieces of electronics, and it's in that sense the Rega 3 a household name. I wholly agree that even back in the golden age of vinyl Technics would have been better known, but Rega have hovered on the edge, between "home stereo" and "high fidelity" and is thus a "crossover" product. No, it's not something a DJ would use as it's strictly home audio – belt-driven turntables lend poorly to tagging and turntablism. Yes, times have changed. Few households these days have any record player to speak of, the music they listen to comes off a computer. What's more, I actually set out to write about a legacy product, except that this has a close cousin that's still in production. it's not that easy to write about iconic objects in ordinary everyday terms. Most of the stuff written is verifiable. I have no connection with the company and have never even owned the product. Feel free to copyedit for whatever reason, or if you feel it's in violation of WP:NPOV especially as noted above. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi-fi journalists tend to be freelancers, and you often see their names pop up in rival magazines. It's a particular hallmark of the trade, so I felt it more appropriate to use the chappy's name. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rega Planar 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:  Ohc ¡digame!
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article: 

I think the layout needs to be fixed.
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best,  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have merged some paragraphs and done some copyediting. I'd be please to have your views on any further improvements. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)