| Revision as of 23:38, 10 June 2006 editMark Kim (talk | contribs)4,886 edits →NPOV← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:35, 11 June 2006 edit undoMark Kim (talk | contribs)4,886 edits Escalated article to Condition 2Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| I think that you have a point...however, who but audiophiles are really qualified to make that distinction? Certainly it would be less biased if they got an average joe to test the cartridges, but audiophiles are the ones who will notice and care about the differences. ] 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | I think that you have a point...however, who but audiophiles are really qualified to make that distinction? Certainly it would be less biased if they got an average joe to test the cartridges, but audiophiles are the ones who will notice and care about the differences. ] 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I also think that someone who has a high regard of audiology and psychoacoustics should also test out Grado's headphones as well, as Grado's Headphones often uses the Supra-Aural Form Factor. I really think Grado needs to start making Circumaural Headphones IMO. — ] (]) 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :I also think that someone who has a high regard of audiology and psychoacoustics should also test out Grado's headphones as well, as Grado's Headphones often uses the Supra-Aural Form Factor. I really think Grado needs to start making Circumaural Headphones IMO. — ] (]) 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Escalated article to Condition 2 == | |||
| After going over the article over and over again, I feel that the article's lack of neutrality is the problem, and at my discretion, I have thus decided that this article needs to be fixed a bit in order to be a bit more neutral, as it's too much goes in detail regarding about Grado's headphones. Some audiophile who has high praise with these headphones started out this article—apparently it's coming to a point where it's lacking too much neutrality, so I'm gonna have to state it as not being neutral completely. — ] (]) 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:35, 11 June 2006
NPOV
NPOV does not mean unbiased, but that the article takes a neutral point of view. The oppinion of "phono cartridges" is attributed to audiophiles, so I think it's NPOV. Maybe I'm wrong on this? Reub2000 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that you have a point...however, who but audiophiles are really qualified to make that distinction? Certainly it would be less biased if they got an average joe to test the cartridges, but audiophiles are the ones who will notice and care about the differences. Tapanageta 11:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also think that someone who has a high regard of audiology and psychoacoustics should also test out Grado's headphones as well, as Grado's Headphones often uses the Supra-Aural Form Factor. I really think Grado needs to start making Circumaural Headphones IMO. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Escalated article to Condition 2
After going over the article over and over again, I feel that the article's lack of neutrality is the problem, and at my discretion, I have thus decided that this article needs to be fixed a bit in order to be a bit more neutral, as it's too much goes in detail regarding about Grado's headphones. Some audiophile who has high praise with these headphones started out this article—apparently it's coming to a point where it's lacking too much neutrality, so I'm gonna have to state it as not being neutral completely. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)