Talk:Nominal impedance/GA1

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

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)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I have wikilinked Ω, λ, and pF on first use; neper was already linked. Was there anything else?  Spinning Spark  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.  Spinning  Spark  11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)