` ::::::Yes, I see what you're saying.  Well, it may be unavoidable in the section title.  If readers read the text it should be fine, I think. '   ===GA Pass=== :GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) Good work on a technical subject. #It is reasonably well written. #:a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  #:: Prose is clear enough, math is inserted where appropriate.  I believe this article is accessible to the technically cognizant reader not necessarily in the field of EE. #It is factually accurate and verifiable. #:a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  #:: adheres to standards for citations in scientific articles, and links to related concepts. #It is broad in its coverage. #:a (major aspects):  b (focused):  #:: defines antimetry, gives examples, and discusses practical examples.  Detail not excessive. #It follows the neutral point of view policy. #:Fair representation without bias:  #:: Not an issue. #It is stable. #:No edit wars, etc.:  #:: No edit wars here. #It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. #:a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  #:: Images created by nominator and licensed appropriately.  Captions good. #Overall:  #:Pass/Fail:  #:: Thanks for bearing with me as I attempted to sort through the unfamiliar technical details. '  `