Talk:Revox B215/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 08:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll do my best!
class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" |
style="vertical-align:top;"
! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute ! | Review Comment |
style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}: {{GATable/item|1a|y|Well-written article that explains detailed technical information in an understandable way. }} {{GATable/item|1b|y|Well-composed article. The sections are appropriate and focused. }} |
style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}: {{GATable/item|2a|y|All statements are properly referenced. }} {{GATable/item|2b|y|There seem to only be a handful of sources listed in the Sources section (aside from the manufacturer's own publications).
:* Was able to find a pdf version of this volume on some relatively shady-seeming website, verified.
:* Was able to find this one as well, from worldradiohistory.com, verified.
:* Was also able to find this one on worldradiohistory. Verified.
:* Found this one on worldradiohistory as well, verified.
:* Found on worldradiohistory. Verified! These sources seem good and solid to me. There are a bunch of references as well, which seem to supplement them well. I will AGF on the German sources because I don't feel like waking up my European buddies right now to have them read tape deck manuals from 1981. }} {{GATable/item|2c|y|Everything's backed up by sources. }} {{GATable/item|2d|y| }} |
style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}: {{GATable/item|3a|y|Comprehensive overview of the stereo's design, construction, performance, and the environment in which it lived (i.e. contrasted with the Nakamichi Dragon and other competitors). There's nothing I have further questions about, that relate to the B215. }} {{GATable/item|3b|y|Focuses very well on the B215. }} {{GATable/item|4|y|There are some parts where it seems quite fond of the deck, but its shortcomings are mentioned as well. }} {{GATable/item|5|y|Article is quite stable. No content disputes. }} |
style="vertical-align:top;"
| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}: {{GATable/item|6a|y|Images are all free and self-made. }} {{GATable/item|6b|y|The images are good, well-taken, clearly illustrate what they are of, and have good captions. }} {{GATable/item|7|y| }} |
I have done some minor copyediting on the article. There are a couple things that I did not want to mess with myself, though:
- {{tq|so each of six adjustments takes up only eight elementary measurements}}: This kind of confuses me, and I'm not sure what it says. Could it be explained more?
Additionally, I found another possible source for the B710:
:"On the other hand, single-case, separate-gap heads can achieve state-of-the-art performance, as witness the excellent Revox B710 MkII and Teac Z-6000, both of which are certainly among today's top performers." - TAPE EQUIPMENT: STATE OF THE ART, Craig Stark, page 44, Stereo Review (March 1984).
(I see you listed this as a reference, but put in the Tape Recording and Buying Guide; either this was a typo or it was in the Guide as well as the March 84 issue).
The main thing that grabs me here is the weird websites that seem to have very similar text to some parts of this article, specifically paragraphs like "The B signal path was designed, from the ground up, for operation with Dolby C noise reduction". I will have to get a more astute person than me to help figure out what is going on with this.
jp×g 01:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:Update: confirmed that there are no copyright violations. Passing. jp×g 07:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)