Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DualDisc/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] DualDisc

This is a self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I feel that myself as well as the others who have contributed to it have made this article an example of the style and concisiveness that every Wikipedia article should strive for. DualDisc is a new and exciting technology and will probably prove to be an interesting read for many Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to leave comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object The ASCII image needs to be replaced with a real image, I think. Additionally, it feels like it might not be entirely comprehensive, although I'm not really conversant with the subject. Have you tried a peer review? Fieari 04:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks to User:SPUI, we have an image to replace the ASCII art. --K1vsr (talk) 18:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Good image, I like it, but the article still seems a little short. Here are some specific things I think could concievably be addressed:
        • Who designed it?
        • You mention it was put out as a marketing test, but by who?
        • Who conducted the test itself?
        • The technical details are a little skimpy... the crit section describes how there were design considerations with space and such. That would go well in the Tech section, in prose form instead of list format. This will require reworking the crit section somewhat, obviously.
        • Manufacturing warnings. WHAT warnings have they issued? What's wrong with using DualDisks in those systems? How catastrophic are those warnings? Will it damage a machine, or just not work?
        • The article in general feels a little short, and like there's more to be said. When these points are addressed, there might still be information to be added that I haven't thought of yet. Obviously, an ephemeral statement like "needs more" isn't actionable, but when these points have been addressed, hopefully what more it needs will be more obvious.
          • All these points have now been addressed. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a good start, but needs a bit more work for FA status. Fieari 01:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Except the last one, which is admittably vague. I'm not sure what this article is lacking now, but it doesn't feel up to the same quality as our other FAs, mostly because I still have this nagging feeling that there's more to be said. I just can't put my finger on what though. I'm changing my object to a Neutral though, until I can actually name more things that can be improved. I'm definitely happy with the improvements made so far though. Fieari 05:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - it is almost totally lacking an introduction. →Raul654 06:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I expanded the introduction quite a bit. If there's more you think it should have, please let me know. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Introduction looks good now, but it could use some inline references. For example, when I saw that sentence about the possible patent infringement, I expected a link to click to get more information. →Raul654 18:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have now added an inline reference for that section as well as a list under the references section. --K1vsr (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • K1vsr asked me to read over this. I'm going to vote neutral for now - it seems good but slightly disorganized. I'll come back to this in a few days and if I haven't figured out why I feel that way I'll probably change to support. --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I have a few problems with this article. But my chief concerns are:
    • The comparison with hybrid Super Audio CDs is not detailed enough - details of this are important because such discs are potentially a major competitor. Specifically a technical comparison would be appreciated. The way I see it these two disc types are two approaches to the same technical problem - how to provide enhanced audio content on a disc that is backward-compatible with traditional CD players. In this way a comprehensive discussion of the technology should offer a technical comparison of the two technologies (though obviously more detailed discussions of Super Audio CDs can be left to that article).
    • The article should explain how spherical aberration may affect playback on slot-loading systems and why deeper pits help get around this.
    • The article needs to include typical sampling rates for the DVD audio content and should also mention that traditional CD encoding is 16-bit stereo LPCM at 44.1 kHz for comparison.
    • It does not reference the patents concerned (link).
    • The article links to the Super Audio CD article through a redirect and hyphenates the title against common usage.
    • The manufacturer warnings are not cited.
    • The apparent downside that disc can have no label and thus are difficult to distinguish between outside of their packaging is not discussed
    • Dual-sided DVDs (DVD-10, DVD-14 and DVD-18) that seem an obvious precursor to this idea are not discussed.

Cedars 11:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • All points have been addressed. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 00:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the work. I have reviewed the article and crossed-out the points I am satisified were addressed. I still believe there needs to be more discussion of Super Audio CDs and a discussion of how spherical aberration relates to problems with DualDiscs. Cedars 04:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK I made all the further changes that you requested. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 19:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work on the changes again, however I'm still not satisfied with the explaination of hybrid Super Audio CDs. They work because the wavelength of the laser in audio CD players is longer than that of the high density players. As a result the laser of audio CD players passes through the high density layer but is reflected by the reflective CD underlay. You can find out more about the process on page seven of the whitepaper. At a minimum this information should be added to the article. Other comparisons including those on market acceptance and the availability of players would be welcome. Cedars 10:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I did some further re-working of that section. Let me know if you still think it needs something else. I left out any mention of market share between the two simply because there don't seem to be any hard statistics yet on SACD sales vs. DualDisc since it's still a relatively young technology. There are plenty of sales figures about SACD vs. DVD-Audio discs, but that's not relevant to DualDisc. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 16:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work! I am now satisfied with the technical content of the article. I will let you know if I think of any more improvements. Cedars 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • object (small) to improve the style I used Wikipedia:Footnote3/numlink2note.pl to convert external numbered links to Wikipedia:Footnote3 style references, however, in the process I discovered several broken links for which I couldn't get bibliographic information. These should be replaced with appropriate references which are available. Incidentally, this shows why direct external links are a bad idea. If there was a proper reference, I could probably have fixed some of those links for you myself. Mozzerati 19:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the formatting change. It looks great. I updated the links to point to new references and updated titles, etc. accordingly. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I updated the references and improved their formatting. Cedars 01:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)