Talk:Braking chopper/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 13:28, 10 May 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):
 * Lead is too short. The lists should be converted to prose. It is best not to have a benefits and drawback sections, they should be mentioned in other sections. The applications is too much like an instruction manual.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This article needs more inline citations. All the lists are uncited and the last section has no cites.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is very short. No history of development. Flux breaking's relationship to Braking Chopper is not made clear in the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A "benefits" and "drawbacks" section (especially in list form) can lend undue weight and present things out of context.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Captions could be a bit more descriptive
 * 1) Overall: Sorry. Too much work needs to be done to get this to GA standard.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: