Talk:Switching control techniques

New Insight
Good article! give me new insight on learning switching control techniques. Keep up the good work! --Muhammad Septian Alamsyah (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Review
Good structure and only small grammer errors have been corrected. --Lu Wan (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Review Comments
Very nice article! However it needs a lot of polishing still IMHO. That's it. Interesting research area though! Daniele3cattaneo (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) There are too many acronyms spread all about... It's OK if the acronym is widespread in general, like EMI for Elecromagnetic Interference, or DC and AC, but PE and PEI are not widespread at all outside the specific field I think. RPWM also should not be acronymized.
 * 2) It is not immediately clear that by "Switching control techniques" you mean switching in the context of SMPSes, especially from the title. I think it should be something like "Switching control techniques in power supplies" or "Switching control techniques in power electronics" or "Switching control techniques (power electronics)". Electronic switching is a problem in logic design as well, and controlling it involves a completely different set of techniques, as for example you can't change the clock frequency of a CPU randomly
 * 3) The sentence where you say "the use of PE brings some drawbacks into the electrical grid" is not clear with respect to the kind of "drawbacks" involved. From what I know, I think that the "drawback" you are referring to is basically the fact that if the power is very high the switching frequency may leak across users connected to the same power substation, because the capacitance of the power line is not enough to filter it. But this is not what I would define as a "drawback" wrt the power grid, the word I would use is "interference" or "negative influence", or "disturbance". In English, a "drawback" of an object is an intrinsic property of that object, not a phenomenon caused by external factors that influence the object. The mistake is semantic in nature.
 * 4) There is a lot of text describing EMI mitigation in general. I think it should be removed, or moved to a more general article, or even expanded to improve the discussion. This is especially highlighted by fig. 1, because most the topics in the figure is not throughly discussed in the article itself. The list of "three key challenges" of PE at the beginning of the article is also out of place; that should be in the Power electronics article not here.
 * 5) The above comment is especially true wrt the beginning of the  Mitigation of Electromagnetic Interference section; it reads like the introduction of a paper ;) It should be more neutral and avoid words like "breakthrough" because they are (in theory) opinable.
 * 6) Figures 2 and 3 are a bit overloaded, because the waterfall diagrams do not add any information that is not already shown in the instantaneous freqency spectrum above them. However that's just a minor issue, you can keep it like this if you like, after all the waterfall diagram is more readable.