This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Hi, I'm an amateur radio enthusiast so I loved reading this article! It's really good, it just needs a few issues addressing. Things to improve are in italics. Ballpointbiro (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
You're absolutely right, sorry I didn't look closely enough at that site to establish that. Your lead section is spot on; provides a good summary of the article without being excessively long. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The prose flows well and is in good encyclopaedic style. I think it is rich enough in technical detail to satisfy someone casually interested in the topic without drowning them in jargon. No spelling or grammatical mistakes.
B - Lead section, layout, words to watch, fiction, lists
See Copyvio for lead section. The layout is logical and follows the MOS, and the article does not contain any words or phrases to watch. The lists in the article are relevant and neatly formatted in tables.
The coverage on the topic is good. In the future it might be nice to add a short section of background describing the state of radio technology at the time. Not required for GA, but I think it would be good to give the casual reader some context.
That's a good idea. There was a fierce competition between Massie, DeForrest, and Marconi. All of them raced to bring more innovative technology to market. --mikeutalk19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it was a fascinating time in radio history. I just wonder about the aliens 110 lightyears away having to listen to all those spark-gap transmitters firing off! Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
B - Focus
The article doesn't wander off topic, it is clear and concise.
All illustrations and linked media are either in the public domain or were created by Wikipedians, no issues here.
B - Relevancy, captions
Most of the images are relevant, and the captions concise and informative. However the main text of the article is "sandwiched" between an image and the infobox (see MOS:SANDWICH). I also think that the number of images should be reduced; the gallery at the bottom, while interesting, is probably not neccessary in the article. I think the Wikimedia Commons collection linked at the bottom of the page is a more appropriate place for these images.
Great. Like I said I think all of the pictures were relevant and interesting, it's always hard to choose just a couple and you've done a great job. The page looks a lot cleaner now. Ballpointbiro (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
