Audio Science Review is not listed @ Wikipedia.

[PaulD]

Great work! Thanks to you, @PaulD and @Webninja for all the time and effort to get this up.

And Thank you @Doodski - he did the work of gathering the material. I was just the person who put it up there! But really it is a team effort.

 

[amirm]

Thank you so much you all for doing this. It was unexpected and much appreciated.

 

[Webninja]

I am attempting to correct the “issues”, and reviewed Audioholics Wikipedia entry for reference. What would probably solve Wikipedia’s concerns is a third party article. I don’t believe ASR has been mentioned in any articles, but point me to them if they exist.

 

[Doodski]

Did not expect my username to be mentioned, but it is okay.

Not sure how best to fix their "issues".

Awww bashful
They(Wikipedia) really do have issues...lol

 

[Doodski]

There seems to be a hanging sentence fragment in the content and test equipment section

The Klippel NFS Speaker Test System and Dr Floyd E. Toole

Is this supposed to be a section header?

Yes, it is supposed to be a section header.

 

[Doodski]

I am attempting to correct the “issues”, and reviewed Audioholics Wikipedia entry for reference. What would probably solve Wikipedia’s concerns is a third party article. I don’t believe ASR has been mentioned in any articles, but point me to them if they exist.

I searched and found links where the manufacturer has used ASR reviews and quoted them.
Is that considered 3rd party?

I found these links where ASR has been linked and quoted.
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/reviews/tagged/audio-science-review
https://www.matrix-digi.com/en/reviews/20200309482.html

 

[Josq]

Hello... long term Wikipedia contributor here, though not on the English language version, which may have slightly different rules and procedures. I see the article is being marked as having several issues. Perhaps it is written a bit too much like an advertisement. And concerning notability, the most important question is probably going to be: are there independent, notable sources that describe ASR? Then the article should be based on those sources. If those sources cannot be found, chances are that the article will be deleted again. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

 

[Webninja]

@Josq - you are correct, and I'm attempting to change the tone to be ore encyclopedic rather than press release-ish.

@Doodski gave us two links above, but we don't (yet) have an article from a notable source that independently describes ASR. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Audioholics as an example, they only have a single Forbes article (link doesn't even work). I'm hoping with the few more third-party references and an adjustment of tone, we can move past the deletion risk.

Keep the suggestions coming, happy to hear all and any.

 

[amirm]

Can you use Reddit as a third-party source? Not that this is particularly good write up but it is on topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/BudgetAudiophile/comments/be3rbx

 

[Josq]

Good luck if no notable sources can be found. I just spent 20 minutes trying to find them but I couldn't. Forum posts and blogs generally don't qualify, neither do websites that just copy some review from ASR. Frankly, if I were an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I would be strongly inclined to delete the article. Not because I don't like ASR or because I don't appreciate all the work, but because it does not meet the bars that Wikipedia sets. And I would feel sorry.

However, you will notice that there are many more articles on Wikipedia that don't meet the criteria. So the best you can do is to make the article neutral at least, and perhaps a bit more concise. And I truly hope that you can find good sources after all.

 

[mansr]

What would probably solve Wikipedia’s concerns is a third party article. I don’t believe ASR has been mentioned in any articles, but point me to them if they exist.

What it needs is an "In popular culture" section.

 

[pozz]

Good luck if no notable sources can be found. I just spent 20 minutes trying to find them but I couldn't. Forum posts and blogs generally don't qualify, neither do websites that just copy some review from ASR. Frankly, if I were an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I would be strongly inclined to delete the article. Not because I don't like ASR or because I don't appreciate all the work, but because it does not meet the bars that Wikipedia sets. And I would feel sorry.

However, you will notice that there are many more articles on Wikipedia that don't meet the criteria. So the best you can do is to make the article neutral at least, and perhaps a bit more concise. And I truly hope that you can find good sources after all.

Can you give an example of an ideal article or any length and a short neutral but acceptable article?

I've been a writer for a long time and can help with the revisions.

 

[Josq]

Can you give an example of an ideal article or any length and a short neutral but acceptable article?

I've been a writer for a long time and can help with the revisions.

Hard to find an "ideal" article.

A Featured Article about a website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage.

I think this one is also a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica

A short, but very acceptable article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophile

 

[Jimbob54]

The ASR Wikipedia text is up. @PaulD and @Webninja entered the data and we all made a couple of minor changes and the Klippel web link was corrupted so that was repaired too. Wikipedia is claiming it reads like a press release news article and advertisement and should read more like a encyclopedia. @Webninja has volunteered to make some changes as he has experience in these things with Wikipedia. Mucho thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Science_Review

Notable omissions:

1. Cult status
2. Desire for world domination and obliteration of all other audio forums
3. Zune

 

[Josq]

Maybe we shouldn't view ASR as an encyclopedic subject but as an encyclopedic source.

The reviews from Amir almost certainly qualify as a reputable source. They can be verified, are highly regarded, often cited etc. Partly, they are secondary sources, reviewing the opinions of others.

So I suggest that ASR, along with other reputable sources in the audio world, should be used to write Wikipedia articles about notable audio products.

 

[pozz]

So I suggest that ASR, along with other reputable sources in the audio world, should be used to write Wikipedia articles about notable audio products.

That's interesting.

Maybe not specific products but to address certain audiophile nonsense, complete with measurements and scientific citations. Also important would be update psychoacoustics, loudspeaker and electronics articles, since those are almost entirely technical and field-specific. They don't have much in the way of studies done specifically for home or studio listening, for explanations of good performance, audibility and so on.

 

[pozz]

Hard to find an "ideal" article.

A Featured Article about a website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage.

I think this one is also a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica

A short, but very acceptable article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophile

Thanks. I'm in the middle of revisions right now.

 

[Josq]

That's interesting.

Maybe not specific products but to address certain audiophile nonsense, complete with measurements and scientific citations. Also important would be update psychoacoustics, loudspeaker and electronics articles, since those are almost entirely technical and field-specific. They don't have much in the way of studies done specifically for home or studio listening, for explanations of good performance, audibility and so on.

Almost Don't go to Wikipedia to classify certain opinions as nonsense, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (at most, you can say that a certain reputable source considers something nonsense). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. But it certainly would be valuable to go to for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loudspeaker_placement&action=edit&redlink=1 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_reflections&action=edit&redlink=1 and to fill the void using the literature by Toole and others.

 

[pozz]

Almost Don't go to Wikipedia to classify certain opinions as nonsense, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (at most, you can say that a certain reputable source considers something nonsense). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. But it certainly would be valuable to go to for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loudspeaker_placement&action=edit&redlink=1 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_reflections&action=edit&redlink=1 and to fill the void using the literature by Toole and others.

I'm really familiar with this style of writing: claim, counterclaim, discussion, citation. No defamatory language and so on.

 

[pozz]

@Josq Is the a Wikipedia house style guide I can use for formatting dates, numbers, etc.?