Talk:Impedance analogy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing style is succinct and presents the topic in an effective format for the reader who may or may not be familiar with the subject matter.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro section is three paragraphs long and under the maximum of four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. Good layout and structural organization overall.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations provided to reliable sources in an in-line citation format with References provided at the end of the article corresponding to the cited works.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Diagrams are provided but they are quite helpful and also duly cited to appropriate sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article is indeed most certainly broad in scope, covering major aspects in multiple different types of educational applications.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is focused on the topic, with appropriate bluelinks to other Wikipedia articles in-text where necessary and appropriate to refer the reader to additional material for context.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, the article is written in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. After inspection of article edit history and talk page edit history, I've found no outstanding issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images check out okay. Not sure why there are not also versions on Wikimedia Commons, but that's not required for GA status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are most certainly relevant to the topic and appropriate in their usage.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall presenting a subject matter that is not simple in nature in an accessible format for the reader and editor, alike. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cirt. I see that you have picked up all at the same time several other articles I nominated. Thanks once again for your hard work. SpinningSpark 00:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, Spinningspark, thanks for your contributions to Quality improvement projects on this site. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)