Audio Science Review is not listed @ Wikipedia.

[Josq]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

 

[pozz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Science_Review

Just updated.

I had to remove the panther ratings section We could reinstate it if we also included discussion of other rankings for electronics and the preference score. Seems too deep at least at the moment.

 

[Josq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Science_Review

Just updated.

I had to remove the panther ratings section We could reinstate it if we also included discussion of other rankings for electronics and the preference score. Seems too deep at least at the moment.

Excellent. As an administrator I would be in doubt now. It does not really meet the notability guidelines, but it is otherwise well written, neutral and verifiable. I would probably give it the benefit of doubt. I would recommend to remove redundant references, particularly the ones to LinkedIn profiles

 

[pozz]

Excellent. As an administrator I would be in doubt now. It does not really meet the notability guidelines, but it is otherwise well written, neutral and verifiable. I would probably give it the benefit of doubt. I would recommend to remove redundant references, particularly the ones to LinkedIn profiles

Done. Thanks a lot.

 

[Josq]

Well done. Final step: some guy added the ugly templates on top of the page. I think enough has been improved to ask him if he thinks the templates can be removed. You can ask him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Calm

 

[pozz]

Well done. Final step: some guy added the ugly templates on top of the page. I think enough has been improved to ask him if he thinks the templates can be removed. You can ask him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Calm

I just edit his user talk page right? Nothing more than that?

 

[Josq]

I just edit his user talk page right? Nothing more than that?

Yes, you can edit the user talk page just like any article. You can sign your message using 4 tildes (~~~~).

 

[Webninja]

thanks very much @pozz and @Josq - I agree that this reads more like a standard wiki entry, and I hope that we are past the deletion risk. I would like to add back more content, but lets see if we can't remove the multiple issues header first.

 

[Doodski]

Wowowow. That new new Wiki entry done by @pozz and @Josq looks great. Thanks muchO guys.

 

[Josq]

Regarding notability, you could mention Amir's three technical Emmy Award wins over the years. How many people have one, let alone 3? lol

2 problems with that: 1) Amirs awards don't automatically make ASR more notable, ASR was not rewarded right? 2) On Wikipedia, notability has a slightly different meaning. You become notable by being described in reputable sources, not by some "vague awareness".

A well-sourced article about Amir might stand a chance.

 

[mansr]

 

[amirm]

2 problems with that: 1) Amirs awards don't automatically make ASR more notable, ASR was not rewarded right? 2) On Wikipedia, notability has a slightly different meaning. You become notable by being described in reputable sources, not by some "vague awareness".

Indeed, the entry is about ASR, not me. And any bolstering of me may backfire later.

 

[amirm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Science_Review

Just updated.

I had to remove the panther ratings section We could reinstate it if we also included discussion of other rankings for electronics and the preference score. Seems too deep at least at the moment.

This is most excellent work. Thank you so much you all.

I think it may be prudent to expand on the subjectivist side. Even if we survive admin action, folks will be free to jump in and edit that section. So best we do it ourselves.

We could say something to the effect:

"A significant portion of the audiophile hobbyists which includes much of the traditional press and online reviewers, does not believe in usefulness of measurements. They dismiss them as not covering what is necessarily audible. As a corollary, they also disagree with state of audio science in understanding human perception and value of measurements."

 

[Josq]

This is most excellent work. Thank you so much you all.

I think it may be prudent to expand on the subjectivist side. Even if we survive admin action, folks will be free to jump in and edit that section. So best we do it ourselves.

We could say something to the effect:

"A significant portion of the audiophile hobbyists which includes much of the traditional press and online reviewers, does not believe in usefulness of measurements. They dismiss them as not covering what is necessarily audible. As a corollary, they also disagree with state of audio science in understanding human perception and value of measurements."

Sorry to be critical again, but no, I would not recommend that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_equipment_testing describes the objectivist/subjectivist controversy. That page can be improved. But turning the ASR entry into an objectivist argument would collide with the Neutral Point of View policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Moreover, the current factual description of ASR is actually very compelling to those who are inclined towards objectivism, much more than any words of contempt towards subjectivists. Science-based, independently funded, advanced testing equipment, international standards... can it get any better?

 

[pozz]

This is most excellent work. Thank you so much you all.

I think it may be prudent to expand on the subjectivist side. Even if we survive admin action, folks will be free to jump in and edit that section. So best we do it ourselves.

We could say something to the effect:

"A significant portion of the audiophile hobbyists which includes much of the traditional press and online reviewers, does not believe in usefulness of measurements. They dismiss them as not covering what is necessarily audible. As a corollary, they also disagree with state of audio science in understanding human perception and value of measurements."

There's an iffy entry on this topic, which I linked in the final section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_equipment_testing

Edit: @Josq beat me to it.

We can put some effort into rewriting that article, providing better sources and so forth.

 

[amirm]

Sorry to be critical again, but no, I would not recommend that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_equipment_testing describes the objectivist/subjectivist controversy. That page can be improved. But turning the ASR entry into an objectivist argument would collide with the Neutral Point of View policy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Moreover, the current factual description of ASR is actually very compelling to those who are inclined towards objectivism, much more than any words of contempt towards subjectivists. Science-based, independently funded, advanced testing equipment, international standards... can it get any better?

Oh, I was trying to do the opposite: that is, give a voice and reason for what subjectivists believe in. Right now we just say in passing they are wrong and move on. If there is a page for that, then we can link to it as evidence of their position.

 

[North_Sky]

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.

Excellent, we need more writers.

You write for an Audio mag?

 

[North_Sky]

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

Excellent!
Now we know what it takes to be a Wiki member in due noble and notable form.

* Which language do you write in for Wiki?

 

[pozz]

Excellent, we need more writers.

You write for an Audio mag?

Academic, technical and legal/regulatory and essay writing mostly.

Not sure what I could contribute to audio right now, besides ASR arguments

 

[pozz]

* Which language do you write in for Wiki?

It's the first time I've contributed to Wiki. I can do English and Russian if anything.

Edit: Whoops. Thought you had quoted me.