Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 27 February 2023

	Nakamichi Dragon has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 9, 2020 Good article nominee Listed February 27, 2023 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fine tuning

@Angrypiranha: - - replacing even more important with another priority is factually incorrect or misleading. Relative azimuth is more important that absolute azimuth. It wasn't another priority, it was the ultimate target. But, as the article explains, the road to this target was so complex and costly that only two companies ever made it. I'm not sure what the proper wording should be, perhaps you can find a better formula. Retired electrician (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: - "left channel of a cassette tape is more prone to mechanical damage and dropouts" - this revision is sort of factually incorrect. It is correct for dropouts (they affect both channels, but often worse in the outermost left channel). It is wrong for mechanical wear, that initially doesn't affect right channel. In moderately frequent use, only the left channel suffers; if the right one shows sign of wear, the tape is already dead. For a while I changed to to "left channel of a cassette tape is more prone to dropouts and wear". Retired electrician (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm fluttered

I remember these from the hi-fi magazines of the period and found the detail fascinating. I have copy-edited more for general grammar and sense than for technical content, however, which I hope is helpful. A point worth drawing to the original contributor's attention is that the article uses some specifically US spellings at present; if that is intentional, I believe that is the author's prerogative, but if not intended then the 'international' version of English may be preferable.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ProfessorDeYaffle:; this article uses American English. The convention on Misplaced Pages is to avoid changing the variety of English used in articles without a good reason or consensus – please see WP:ENGVAR. Unfortunately, I reverted your edits for technical reasons (you altered some technical terms) and the aforementioned ENGVAR; thank you for picking up several spelling errors, which I fixed during my copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the technical issues! The question re English variety was genuine; I wonder if it might be helpful for the original writer to make their intentions known and, once they have, to put a marker on the article so that subsequent editors don't unintentionally deviate?ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The article was based mostly on US sources. This, in part, reflects physical availability of sources (i.e. bias), but also the size of the market and installed base. We won't know exact numbers, but certainly the bulk of production ended up in North America. To me it seems normal that the article leans to US spelling.

Personally, I have no feel of English variants, apart from very obvious cases like color/colour. Right now I looked at the text, and it mixes up analog/analogue and I wouldn't know if these are regional varieties or interchangeable synonyms... Oxford says "analogue the norm, analog US", Webster lists both as interchangeble, and Texas Instruments widely uses analogue.

I'm AFC for the next few days, and will review the revised text in detail later (Aug 12 the earliest). I'll ping in the section above if the revisions seem incorrect. Retired electrician (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If I have understood the manual of style correctly, the original contributor's intentions should probably guide the way under the 'Retain' rule, since there is no particular tie to either main variant of English. I can help with the term analogue, though, as the international spelling uses the traditional -gue ending while 'analog' is indeed specific to US English.ProfessorDeYaffle (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nakamichi Dragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this article over the coming week. So far, this article looks like a remarkable piece of work. Thank you for all the effort you put in it and congratulations on achieving GA status on ruwiki. I will "Enter the Dragon" and see what needs to be addressed, if anything, for this article to be promoted. MSG17 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Prose and MOS

The article has very engaging prose - in fact, some of the best I've seen in a Misplaced Pages article. The writing strikes a good balance between comprehensively explaining the subject and its background and keeping it understandable. Footnotes are also used well to provide additional information. I don't see any MOS violations, but I will do a more thorough analysis later into this. I do see one issue:

• It was not just another precision recording machine: it was a universal player that could play almost any cassette recorded by almost any other deck and consistently make the best of it. This is too promotional/subjective for regular prose. The sentence should be modified the sentence to indicate this was the Dragon's reputation, or quotes should be used. (Edit: Actually, I am having second thoughts on this considering how clearly this is defined as the zenith of cassette player tech.)

Broadness, focus, neutrality and stability

The article has stellar coverage of the deck and explains the technical background very well without going into too much details or straying from the topic. No edit warring to be seen. Passed on all of these fronts. I will look at neutrality later, considering that this deck is apparently one of the pinnacles of cassette tape technology.

• It was the one. The reference that persisted for 11 or 12 years, until the technology died out in the 1990s. This explains coverage in the press. Source base is an order of magnitude larger than that of the number two contender. So even diehard fans of European makers like yours truly have to bow in awe. Retired electrician (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations and refs

The article makes good use of properly formatted inline citations throughout. I am not an audio expert, so I will evaluate the reliability of the sources used later. Right now, I only havea couple comments:

• There is a block of seven citations for the first sentence of the "Overall ratings" section, which makes it quite cluttered. I would recommend bundling the citations, or reorganizing the text to break up the cluster.
• Also, although this isn't necessary, it would be greatly appreciated if you could translate the titles of non-English sources and include them in the "trans-title" parameter. I already added a romanized title to the Russian source using the "title" and "script-title" parameters.
  • Did both, Retired electrician (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Great! After some research, I see the you have used some very reliable sources for this topic. Refs are passed.

Images

The article makes beautiful use of images and diagrams, not only settling at merely pictures of the deck but also giving a clear visual representation of azimuth that will aid readers in understanding the concept. Definitely passed here! Most images are tagged for free use. I will look at the patent images and make sure no claims have been lodged for them.

Copyright

Earwig doesn't seen any copvios. I don't see anything that indicates any copying. Passed.

After looking over the references, doing more research, and a quick prose edit, I am satisfied with this article. I will pass it and update its status. I even think it could make a good FA candidate, although I would recommend getting a peer review or asking another user with more experience with cassette decks to look it over first. MSG17 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Delist?

Nakamichi Dragon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept as issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The original article covered the historic product, and nothing more. In the recent month it was loaded with poorly formatted unrelated content and outright spam. It's an unmanageable mess. Retired electrician (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the version before the promotional material was added and have left a COI-notice on the talk page of the two editors who added that content. In the future, please try to resolve issues before bringing an article to GAR. Femke (alt) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Femke: Am I in the clear to close this as keep? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I've not checked if the current version is GA?-compliant, so let's ask @Retired electrician. I don't mind it being closed as keep if there are no outstanding issues noted. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Engineering and technology good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class electronic articles
• Low-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles
• GA-Class Brands articles
• Low-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles