Grado @ wikipedia

[hugz]

Hey all

I decided to add some information to the wikipedia article on grado.

I'm not 100% certain on all the information though, so if any grado users/fans could check it out for me and correct anything for me, that'd be great.

you can either just edit the page directly, or if you dont know how to do that, just post up here and i'll fix it up.

things that i'm most unsure about are:
-earpads
-termination

Also, as you can see my knowledge of past grados and special production models is pretty lacking. does anyone know things such as frequency response etc for those models?

Did i miss any models?

Should RRP be added or is that too difficult to definately define? i suspect it may be possible since grado fixes prices i think

Thanks!

 

[GrooveTropics]

Amazing Job man, it looks awesome. I bet if John Grado came across it he would take pride in that it was all put together by somebody from Head-Fi
and that no other headphone company has a page like that.

 

[cazoo]

excellent job hugz!

it would be very cool if someone could add the production years on the earlier models such as the HP-1's. i've always been curious to know when they were first made and when production stopped.

 

[Usagi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrooveTropics Amazing Job man, it looks awesome. I bet if John Grado came across it he would take pride in that it was all put together by somebody from Head-Fi and that no other headphone company has a page like that.

Why not just email the link to Grado?

Hugz,

Nice job!

 

[Inter]

I'm very pleased to notice that there has been no vandalism to the Grado article after this thread was posted. That is more than what I can say about certain other online communities whenever they decide to contribute to articles.

The article looks good, although a bit on the "list" side. If anyone knowledgeable of Grado could flesh out the list of cans with some facts (just the fact's ma'am, please) that would be awesome.

Since it's been going so well so far with the article, I'd still like to point out this article for you all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...kipedia_is_not

The article lists what Wikipedia isn't, which usually clears up some confusion on what you can write and what you can't. Please, please at least skim this article if you plan to contribute.

If you have any questions (editorial or managerial) about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me either here or here.

Thanks!

 

[hugz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inter The article looks good, although a bit on the "list" side. If anyone knowledgeable of Grado could flesh out the list of cans with some facts (just the fact's ma'am, please) that would be awesome. Since it's been going so well so far with the article, I'd still like to point out this article for you all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...kipedia_is_not The article lists what Wikipedia isn't, which usually clears up some confusion on what you can write and what you can't. Please, please at least skim this article if you plan to contribute. If you have any questions (editorial or managerial) about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me either here or here. Thanks!

I agree that it's a bit list-ish. I really would like to keep as many of the 'cold hard facts' there as possible because wikipedia is always my first source when i'm looking, for example, for how powerful a certain car is or what it's 0-100 is. so i figure it would be useful to hold equivilant information for headphones too. that way, someone interested in comparing headphones can easily hit up wikipedia to see the specifics of various models. maybe this isn't completely right for wikipedia though, i'm not sure.

It would be real cool for people to add things other bits of info though.

my main concern is the accuracy of some of my facts though. like i said, i'm not 100% certain on all of the earpads and terminations that i entered.

also, just to make sure i'm not stealing undue credit- i only added the model info, not the introduction

edit: yes, looking over it, it really does need more non-listy stuff! it was tempting to give indications of which were good and why but that seems far too subjective for wikipedia.

edit: Grado lovers, add to it! make sure you stay within wikipedia guidelines though and dont just say "grados sound better than sennhesier!"

 

[Inter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hugz I agree that it's a bit list-ish. I really would like to keep as many of the 'cold hard facts' there as possible because wikipedia is always my first source when i'm looking, for example, for how powerful a certain car is or what it's 0-100 is. so i figure it would be useful to hold equivilant information for headphones too. that way, someone interested in comparing headphones can easily hit up wikipedia to see the specifics of various models. maybe this isn't completely right for wikipedia though, i'm not sure.

Nothing wrong with this, as specs on cans are facts and informative for anyone who would dig them up. It shouldn't be overdone as some editors may say too much information is bad information, especially if it reflects the same thing. Another thing to keep in mind is that comparisons between cans should not in any way be included. It can be as objective as you can possibly get it, it won't help. Somebody will roll back or revert those edits.

If the articles contain facts about cans and you compare them yourself using WP as a reference, it is however peachy and fine

Quote:

my main concern is the accuracy of some of my facts though. like i said, i'm not 100% certain on all of the earpads and terminations that i entered.

If you aren't completely sure, don't add it. You can always find out and then add it.
Quote:

also, just to make sure i'm not stealing undue credit- i only added the model info, not the introduction

Yup, but anyone can see that for themselves. Take a look at the diff of what you did to the article.

Quote:

edit: yes, looking over it, it really does need more non-listy stuff! it was tempting to give indications of which were good and why but that seems far too subjective for wikipedia.

It is. It would have been reverted within 30 seconds.

 

[joelongwood]

Very impressive!