Talk:Numerically controlled oscillator/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Well written. There was an incredibly minor grammar issue that I went ahead and corrected myself.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * Remember to wikilink technical terms when possible. Waveform and sinusoidal are not typical English vernacular so it is appropriate to wikilink those from the article. I have gone ahead and corrected that and found no other issues.

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * It would be advisable to get additional sources of references, but the content is referenced. A wider source of references would only serve to provide a wider view on the topic and/or allow for cross-referencing.


 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * While in-line citations are sparse, they are where they need to be. This could be improved, but it certainly satisfies this criterion.


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No evidence of original research. Content appears to be referenced appropriately.

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * OK


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Detailed where it needs to be, but does not digress or over-complicate things (beyond what would be expected from an engineering article).

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * The article appears to be neutral, but for further improvement, a wider set of references would not be a bad idea.

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No content dispute

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Both images are free and appropriately tagged, however I strongly advise converting them both to SVG as both are definitely candidates for it.


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Surely relevant and captioned, however consider placing the first image at the very top of the page instead.

General comments
This article is well written for a technical article. There is still a bit of work to be done (some details can be fleshed out, etc.) but the article gives a good background knowledge to any reader. See the above comments on potential places for continued improvement.

Overall
Having satisfied the above criteria, I see no reason not to pass this article, however I advise that the recommendations above be followed for further improvement. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)