Talk:Inverted-F antenna

Inverted-F antenna 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.
Review: November 11, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Inverted-F antenna appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the inverted-F antenna (pictured), the antenna used in mobile phones, was originally developed for missile telemetry?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Inverted-F antenna.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inverted-F antenna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for reviewing Samtar! SpinningSpark 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Fully meets 1a criteria.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Fully meets 1b criteria.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Article contains a list of all references set out as per Wikipedia:FNNR, thus satisfying criteria 2a.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sourced considered reliable to section 2b standards.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article does not contain any original research.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article contains a broad overview of the major aspects of the subject.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The summary style is not overly detailed yet focused.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The entire article is written in a neutral manner.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article has been stable without major changes due to dispute.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Fully meets 6a criteria.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use of five appropriate images with informative captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Article meets GA criteria.

Discussion

Well done SpinningSpark - this article flew through the GA criteria! Keep up the good work, and never stop striving to improve samtar ^{t} 09:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Incorrect usage of plural, i.e. antennas vs. antennae

For inanimate objects: one antenna, two antennas. For animate objects ("bugs", insects, sea creatures and the like): one antenna, two antennae.12.90.238.18 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incorrect. The Latinate plural has been used right from the time radio was invented, and is still used in scholarly papers now. Either plural is acceptable, see User:Spinningspark/Plural of antenna. SpinningSpark 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed error in typesetting

While inserting minor formatting changes and minor citation corrections, I noticed that the article was full of post-period typewriter double-spaces. That now-obsolete habit is not used with proportionally spaced fonts: It was only used for old fixed-space (typewriter) fonts in the early days of ASCII text.

So I removed all of the double-spaces after periods I could find. Please do not try to restore them: Wikipedia is rendered in proportionally spaced fonts and it is now a typing error.
107.116.93.41 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers can render Wikipedia pages in any font they want. You have no idea what they are doing. This style is not an error, either in recognised style manuals (see User:Spinningspark/Two spaces at the end of sentences) or in the Wikipedia MOS (see MOS:DOUBLE SPACE). Styles already established in an article take precedence per MOS:STYLEVAR unless there is a good reason to change them. And in this case there is no good reason since, as you say, they are not rendered in proportional fonts and hence make no visible difference. SpinningSpark 11:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]