Talk:Liquid fly-back booster/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
 * OUTSTANDING ISSUE HERE: I've tagged the lead sect as too short. Per WP:LEAD, please expand lead sect to function as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Can be up to four (4) total paragraphs in length, per WP:LEAD.
 * 2. Verifiable?: OUTSTANDING ISSUE HERE: I've gone ahead and added some fact tags to ends of paragraphs. Looks like there are cites at the ends of those sects, but if that's the case, please add them also repeated at end of each paragraph, for future people to make it easier to verify.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects in good structural layout. No issues here.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a matter of fact tone throughout. No issues here.
 * 5. Stable? No issues here. Upon inspection of article and talk page history, stable with no major ongoing current conflicts.
 * 6. Images?: Inspected all images, all from Wikimedia Commons, all check out okay on their image pages. No issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you! Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ @1 - that was the hard one... hopefully it's fine now. I tried to mention some key info from every section. Hopefully withouth any major grammar mistakes... @2 - Yes, all of the info was available in the sources at the end of a section, but it's fine, I added source to every fact you asked for, pointing at a specific page with said information. ps. I'll be away until 5 October. SkywalkerPL (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so quick and responsive to my comments, and in such a polite manner. Much appreciated. Passed as GA. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)