Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical engineering

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electrical engineering[edit]

A self-nomination, I sincerely believe this article has grown to be one of the best it can be. The article has previously undergone peer review. Cedars 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous so called peer review has nothing to do with the present article nonmination. THe article is now quite different from what it was.--Light current 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really dont feel this article is upto scratch yet for FAC nom. It needs a great deal more work to make it interesting enough to the general readership. I feel that one of the sub fields may be more of a suitable candidate where the presentation can be made more punchy and glamorous. After all, electrical engineering as such is not really that appealing to the general public unfortunately.!--Light current 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The level of interest the general public may have in an article is not valid grounds for an objection. Shoe Polish was on the main page not long ago. - The Catfish 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think shoe polish is actually more intersting than EE! 9its certainly less controversial!--Light current 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written. Coming in knowing little about the subject, I found it easy to read and navigate. Forever young 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good start. As I noted on the talk page, the Terminology section must be removed, and its content implemented into the lead. There should also be further development in the lead of the general history of the profession, in my opinion. I like the inclusion of electrical engineer information in this article. The subfields section I think should be converted to normal text, with subsections and no special background color. Finally, the lead needs a picture of some common EE-related product or structure. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the big box should be converted to normal summary style text.--nixie 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the suggestions. The editors have now removed the big box, incorporated the terminology into the lead and added an EE picture to the lead. Cedars 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this suggestion too!--Light current 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:Spangineer has a reasonable suggestion, and Im prepared to run with it to see how it works. In fact Ive already changed the lead to his proposed format. I think we ought to watch the size of the lead tho, as large blocks of text can be very turbid to read.--Light current 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article. Someone might want to tighten the language a bit (there are some informal style sentences like "may or not be certified..."), but in general, I believe this is a valid FAC. Phils 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more specific issues: the last paragraph of the "Early developments in electricity" section doesn't seem to have a good topic sentence, and its last sentence begs the question of who were the other important people of the era. If the people mentioned in the following section are the people that are meant, a better connecting sentence would be helpful. The paragraph also seems to suggest that Tesla's work had an impact on EE while Edison was only a mercenary out to make money. Another thing—I've just combined the demographics section into the newly renamed "Practicing engineers" section, because that section already covered professional societies, which was largely unrelated to training and certification. Anyway, most of the statistics in that section focus on engieners in general, not on electrical engineers. While there may be some correlation, it'd be better to have numbers specifically stating the number of EEs in those countries. Finally, I'm a bit disappointed with the inconsistency of the notes: there aren't any in the second half of the history section, nor in the education section, nor in the sub disciplines section. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made some adjustments to the Edison/Telsa paragraph but more improvements are welcome. Statistics specifically for electrical engineers are very had to come by (if they exist). The 0.25% figure is specific to electrical engineering but the others are not. I have added an extra sentence to clarify this. The general statistics are included to give an idea of where in the world engineering is growing. As for the notes, they were only added when there was a need for details outside of the main body of the article. As such I'm not sure if there's any need for them to be placed consistently through the article (most times the necessary information can be represented in the article's main body). Thanks for your comments. Cedars 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take a look at this some more and see if I can fix the problems I see, but for now I'll formalize my vote—object. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have further revised the statistics paragraph and would be happy to investigate further sources for the revised comment. Is the statistics paragraph the main outstanding point of your objection or are there other parts of what you mentioned that you still feel have not been addressed? Thanks. Cedars 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My main outstanding problem is the lack of inline citations. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the "main body" of the article—in my opinion, all articles should be verifiable, which means that sources are needed to back up everything in the article. I would think that an introductory EE book with a chapter or two on the history and application of EE would serve the purpose quite nicely, but until then there is a lot of unreferenced material in this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If I provided citations for the text on each of the sub-disciplines would that be sufficient to address your concerns? Cedars 05:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Equally important, if not more so, are the education and history sections. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Citations are now provided for all the facts in the History section. The Education section is based on a general survey of universities. I can provide a citation for this section if need be. Is that neceessary and otherwise is there anything else required to take care of the objection? Cheers. Cedars 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have now added a citation for the Education section and expanded the History section slightly. Cedars 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote at the moment, although I just changed the lead so that pictures are only on one side. Having a picture at the top-left and top-right makes it unreadable in 800x600, so I would have to oppose if that returns. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment (and edit) Christopher. I have now removed the second lead picture since one lead picture should sufficient for the article. Cedars 02:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great article, very detailed. --Terence Ong Talk 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ==Sub disciplines== uses a table to display images and content. Is there a valid reason for using such a markup? It is considered bad style to wikify headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for using table formatting was that it helped ensure the pictures aligned with the related content. The links were important becuase they link to articles on the sub disciplines. However I have now removed the table and hopefully this helps resolve the objection. Cedars 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note 1 does not return to the section. Also check the links. One of the links points to a dead resource: [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Nichalp. I have fixed the note link and corrected the citation. The citation now points to data from the 2004 NSF report. Cedars 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A ton of effort has obviously gone into this article, and looking it over in the most cynical manner possible, I can still find absolutely nothing about its content or layout that would prevent it from being a great featured article.User:KrazyCaley
  • Comment. Is it just me, or are there a ton of blue wikilinks in the article? Does it really need all of them? I'm sure you could at least remove some of the year-links. Gflores Talk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gflores! I have removed all the date links as you suggested because they are inconsistent with the current Manual of Style. I will take a closer look at the other wikilinks soon. There are still date links in the web reference template but unfortunately this template is protected and therefore this cannot be changed. Thanks for your suggestions. Cedars 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. But it can still be better. :) I noticed that United States in linked 3 times. Australia as well. Automobiles, physics, appliances, Canada, and several others are linked more than one time. If it's really necessary for the links to be there, that's fine. But in my opinion that doesn't appear to be the case. It's ultimately your decision. P.S. I can give you a list of the things linked multiple times, you'd like. Keep up the good work. :) Gflores Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the suggestions that you very briefly explain circuit theory and VLSI (rather than just relying on the bluelinks) and that you put in a couple of lines about where electrical engineers usually work (consulting firms? universities?). -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestions Mwalcoff. I have now explained those terms in the article. The article already contains the sentence "Electrical engineers may be found in the pristine lab environment of a fabrication plant, the offices of a consulting firm or on site at a mine." Is that sufficient to cover the workplaces of electrical engineering or would you like more details? Cedars 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sorry, I missed that. I reaffirm my support. Good job. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding citations. A few in the subdisciplines section would be nice, but I'll support now. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well written. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on historical/ bias grounds. I believe the history section is woefully inadequate for an encyclopedia article indicating, as it does, that nothing happened in electrical engineering duing WW2. This is a denial of the facts and should be rectified.--Light current 06:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is only meant to give a brief overview of the history of electrical engineering. More detailed discussion will be placed in the history of electrical engineering article as it evolves. Cedars 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks very good. My only suggestion is to put a couple paragraphs directly under "History" -- just a brief overview. Tuf-Kat 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Electrical_engineering&oldid=1080991297"