Talk:Nominal impedance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Several users with bad knowledge in physics might not understand the several units. Try to link to them or explain in this article.--GoP_T^C_N 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have wikilinked Ω, λ, and pF on first use; neper was already linked. Was there anything else? SpinningSpark 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. The article is very informative, written in an excellent prose and interesting, and I wonder why it stayed so long :/. Well done! :)--GoP_T^C_N 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Technical articles often wait a long time, many editors are afraid to review them. Thanks for taking the time. SpinningSpark 11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)