Talk:Acoustic phonetics

spam link erased

there was an advertising link and I erased it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.244.201 (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly history, not much about what the subject covers

Much of the information currently contained in the article focuses on how the field developed. There's only a little bit about what the field is, in the lead paragraph. I suggest that most of the current material be put into a subsection on History, and that another subsection be written that goes into more detail about what the field studies. (Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the field to do so myself.) AlbertBickford (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment and ideas for imporvement

I have assessed this article as Start class for the reasons below:

References: Start-level. Though the article has a bibliography, none of those works are cited in the prose of the article making it difficult to verify the actual sources of the information.

Structure: Stub-level. The article has minimal structure beyond introduction and body paragraphs and the structure reads more like an essay than it does an encyclopedic article. One cannot easily find a particular topic within the prose.

Content: Start-level. While severely lacking in information regarding to the wide field that is acoustic phonetics, the content that is contained is not irrelevant and, when the article is ultimately expanded, will likely be kept in some form.

Prose stands to be improved as it doe snot read like an encyclopedic article.

Supporting information could be used such as diagrams, pictures, and tables that would improve understanding of the topic. Even a depiction of a formant would be useful.

I have given the article an importance of mid because, while many non-linguists likely haven't heard of acoustic phonetics, a firm understanding of its basic principles underlies the subfields of phonetics, phonology, and even historical linguistics to some degrees making it more than low importance.Wugapodes (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acoustic phonetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ling.lu.se/research/speechtutorial/tutorial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional Assessment and Possible Extrapolation

As user AlbertBickford has previously stated, currently, the acoustic phonetics article encompasses a partial history of Acoustic Phonetics and does not extrapolates further into the field’s more current concepts, components, or applications. Extrapolation on the aspects of the spectrogram (additionally the analysis of Spectrogram. but this better resolved through the Spectrogram article itself)and formant’s involvement in the field of acoustic phonetics would be beneficial in creating an efficient article. Lastly, given the article’s tone and complete absence of inline citations, the article seems to indicate a short essay retrofitted as a Wikipedia article. Js49215 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)