It's actually even worse for me if I have something and can't find it. If I don't have it, I may buy it, but if I know I already have one, I'm too tight to buy another one.

and that's when the job grinds to a halt.
If you haven't spent your weekends sorting the truck and the tools (or sorting the resistors and capacitors back into the drawers), your productivity goes into limping mode. You can't run a business if you don't do your housework!

 

17. I have no experience with Arduino code, and therefore cannot critique its structure; I do note that, except for the comments, the code is identical to the code included as an example at https://github.com/markruys/arduino-DHT/blob/master/examples/DHT_Test/DHT_Test.pde and presumably written by Mark Ruys. If so, it would have been more forthcoming (or at least more courteous) to point out that Mark Ruys wrote the main code (except for the comments) as well as the DHT library.

Uh-oh. We had a similar problem this morning with the article on how to have two Arduinos communicate with one another through nRF24L01 wireless modules, wherein significant chunks of the article text appeared to have been lifted from another website. (After this was pointed out the article was taken down, along with the review thread containing that and other criticisms.)

Someone needs to be more careful...

 

Uh-oh. We had a similar problem this morning with the article on how to have two Arduinos communicate with one another through nRF24L01 wireless modules, wherein significant chunks of the article text appeared to have been lifted from another website. (After this was pointed out the article was taken down, along with the review thread containing that and other criticisms.)

Someone needs to be more careful...

Ok let's clarify a few things.

This content was not "lifted" nor was it removed due to this "opinion". It was removed because it simply was not ready to go live.

We take plagiarism very seriously in which we run plagiarism checks with every article. Are there going to be similarities? Yes. Is every article comprised of 100% unique words, verbiage, etc. No. Not possible no matter how hard we try.

Let me know when you all are interested in writing. Perhaps the finest writers are right under our noses.

 

Following are my comments, some of which may have already been mentioned. I haven't read the posts in the last hour or so.

First, here's the good news. The circuit functions as described and the code runs as written. (The relative humidity and the temperature seem to be close, but I did not verify their accuracy.)

1. There is no period at the end of the first sentence.
2. I guess the article could be described as a tutorial, however tutorials do not normally use the first person plural. In this article, the writer shifts back and forth from using "we" to "you."
3. The semicolon following "elements" is misused. There is only one independent clause. In addition, the sentence is awkwardly constructed, which makes its intent unclear.
4. There should be a comma after "calibrated."
5. There is no 4mm x 4mm QFN package visible in any of the photos. Presumably, there is one inside the four-pin DHT11 module that is shown in the photos, but describing it is misleading to the reader.
6. In the bulleted list, most items are complete sentences, but have no end punctutation. Rather than start so many bullet points with "it," rewrite the bullet points to eliminate the appearance of sentences, and increase their clarity. For example, instead of "It can sense relative humidity up to +- 4.5%," write "Relative humidity accuracy: +- 4.5%", thus eliminating the need for end punctuation.
7. The first sentence under "Arduino Library" is a run-on sentence. It should be broken into its separate thoughts, and punctuated accordingly.
8. There should be a comma after "Download the library".
9. Actually, there is no need to extract the files from the zip package in the reference. The IDE will import the zip file as is, thus eliminating the need to restart the IDE.
10. Under "Experiment", the writer shifts back to first person plural pronouns.
11. Under "Hardware", the writer states the quantity required of the single items, but does not state how many jumper wires are needed.
12. In the note, the use of a "4 pin temperature sensor" is mentioned for the first time. This should have been explained in the paragraph where the QFN package was described. (See note 5 above.)
13. Likewise, the mention of "3 pin breakout boards" should have been mentioned earlier, or preferably left out altogether.
14. The sentence about not needing "to attach a resistor with them" is confusing and superfluous.
15. The Fritzing diagram and the photograph of the wired assembly are electrically identical, but physically different. This is a potential source of confusion for the novice.
16. The photograph of the wired assembly is poorly focused on the Uno, and the harsh shadows are distracting and make it difficult to see which pins on the DHT11 are bridged by the resistor.
17. I have no experience with Arduino code, and therefore cannot critique its structure; I do note that, except for the comments, the code is identical to the code included as an example at https://github.com/markruys/arduino-DHT/blob/master/examples/DHT_Test/DHT_Test.pde and presumably written by Mark Ruys. If so, it would have been more forthcoming (or at least more courteous) to point out that Mark Ruys wrote the main code (except for the comments) as well as the DHT library.
18. The bulleted list following "Steps" is poorly placed. In addition, the second bullet is not a step, and is superfluous.

Had this been submitted by a high school student, I would have graded it as follows.

Content: C (but with a deduction for not crediting the code writer)
Originality: D
Structure: D
Grammar and Syntax: D

BTW, I have no intention of going into this level of detail on future edits that I may do.

Thanks for your thorough edit of this article. Your edits were taken into consideration, but I hope the following provides clarification on the edits we have not incorporated:
1. There is a period at the end of the first sentence. It comes after "IC."
2. The second person was utilized to keep the tutorials informal. If it's distracting, it can be eliminated.
3. There were two independent clauses, but I reworded the sentence to make it less ambiguous.
4. Changed
5. Noted.
6. Noted
7. Not a run-on sentence.
8. I understand the tendency to want to place a comma before a coordinating conjunction, but that would be incorrect in this instance, much like it would be in the following: "Water the plants, and take out the trash." If it's a matter of two independent clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction, then I choose stylistically to avoid the excess of an unnecessary comma, as should be done in a compound sentence.
9. Noted.
10. Noted.
11. Noted
12. Noted.
13. Noted.
14. Removed.
15. Noted.
16. Noted.
17. Noted.
18. Removed.

And yes, I did read the article before it was posted to the thread. The snark was unnecessary.

 

Good call! --- To this I would add (as regards construction articles in general) that it is imperative that all 'special' hardware is expected to be readily sourcable in small quantities for the foreseeable future...

TTFN
HP

Great! Thank you, I'll add that in.

 

That is not a 'circuit diagram' it is, rather, a pictorial WIRING diagram! Aye! aye!! aye!!!

With constructive intent
HP

Thanks! Renamed

 

Thanks for your thorough edit of this article. Your edits were taken into consideration, but I hope the following provides clarification on the edits we have not incorporated:
1. There is a period at the end of the first sentence. It comes after "IC."
2. The second person was utilized to keep the tutorials informal. If it's distracting, it can be eliminated.
3. There were two independent clauses, but I reworded the sentence to make it less ambiguous.
4. Changed
5. Noted.
6. Noted
7. Not a run-on sentence.
8. I understand the tendency to want to place a comma before a coordinating conjunction, but that would be incorrect in this instance, much like it would be in the following: "Water the plants, and take out the trash." If it's a matter of two independent clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction, then I choose stylistically to avoid the excess of an unnecessary comma, as should be done in a compound sentence.
9. Noted.
10. Noted.
11. Noted
12. Noted.
13. Noted.
14. Removed.
15. Noted.
16. Noted.
17. Noted.
18. Removed.

And yes, I did read the article before it was posted to the thread. The snark was unnecessary.

The first sentence is, "In this project, we are going to learn how to use DHT sensors with an Arduino", and should end with a period. Beyond that, I have no further interest in arguments. If you read it and liked it the way it was, don't change a word on my snarky account.

 

New article (this one less awful) posted: http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...evenin-and-norton-equivalent-circuits.112761/