Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nathan2055 (talk • contribs • count) 17:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart

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.	Immediate problems in the section "Hybrid transformer". Please copyedit the section to fix problems. Fixed as of 19:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	While one section needs a copyedit (see above), it complies with the manual of style.
	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.	I spotted three citation neededs. Please source those statements. Fixed as of 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
	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).	See 2a. Fixed as of 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I may not have good knowledge in engineering, but it read well enough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It looks great, just like a real encyclopedia article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	You really can't be biased with this kind of article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars seen.
	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 licensed with Commons-supported free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Wow! Using figure numbers like in a "For Dummies" book was a great idea!
	7. Overall assessment.	~~One section needs copyediting (1a) and three statements need to be sourced (2a, 2b).~~ Passed! Great job, everyone! --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed an obvious typo in the hybrid transformer section, please be more specific if there is anything else you think needs addressing in the section.

The story with the {{cn}} tags is that I added these myself when I reviewed the article pre-GA but was reluctant to delete them outright as I am fairly sure (from professional knowledge of transmitters) that the statements are accurate. I will contact the editor who added them asking for a source. I have already attempted to source them myself but with only partial success. I will have another look at the weekend (right now I am on the road and do not have access to my library) but if nothing turns up I will remove or rewrite the unsourced parts. Spinning Spark 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have fixed the typo myself, but it was so bad I couldn't make out exactly what you meant. If you can source those three statements I'll pass the GA. --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and why didn't you merge those images to the Commons? I'm just curious, wouldn't that allow more people to access them? --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Spinning Spark 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several new references and reworded or deleted the parts I could not source. I have left messages for the original contributors but have had no response. They are welcome to restore with sources anything I have deleted: I am sure it was all technically and factually correct. I have also made a couple of small additions to the lede: this was to address a comment in the previous GA review. I believe that all items have now been addressed. Spinning Spark 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Someone placed a use Dmy dates template-but I'm unable to find a problem. The article passes! Congratulations! --Nathan2055 ^talk^-^review 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]