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)

GA Review

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:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER) Fix short paragraphs. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

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.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  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)