Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Voltage doubler/1

Voltage doubler

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Not listed. There is agreement that there is a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the article, so criteria 3 Broad coverage cannot be assessed. There are suggestions that it wouldn't take much to address the concerns, and then the article can be nominated again.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The GAN of this article was recently closed as not listed. The reason given was that the reviewer had concerns over the scope and title of the article. The review never really got past this question before it was closed. I am seeking here a view on the correct methodology for determining the scope of a title.

My position, in summary, is that the term voltage doubler is a stock phrase in the industry and refers to a specific class of circuits. The position of the reviewer was that the title should be taken literally and that the scope of the article should be increased to cover any circuit or device capable of doubling voltage, such as transformer.

My evidence for my position is as follows;


 * I asked an uninvolved editor, User:Rogerbrent, who I knew to be an expert in electronics to add an opinion. Roger broadly agreed that the scope was restricted as the article states but did suggest the addition of another circuit.
 * There are around 9,000 gbook hits for voltage doubler, all of which seem to be relevant textbooks, and all of which present a set of circuits similar to what is now in the article, or the article plus Roger's suggested addition. I have checked thoroughly the first two pages of results and random selections elsewhere: none of these sources list or mention transformer as a voltage doubler or any other circuit that has been excluded from the scope of the article.
 * While the term does not really have an exact definition in the industry, this book and this book give a definition that exactly corresponds to the scope of the current article.  Spinning Spark  19:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Spinningspark is being disingenuous in focusing on the transformer example. I quote from what he himself said during the GA review: "I can give you (at least I can now we have had this discussion) a clean and precise definition that is free from all qualifying phrases and free of all mention of specific components (at least till the point the article starts discussing specific or "most common" circuits) and would be recognised as valid by others skilled in the art. The problem is that I do not believe that I could back up that definition with sources." Seems pretty clear cut to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not promote: a problem encountered in the review was not addressed, so quite rightly the nomination was failed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The current article covers the definition of a doubler likely to be found in most textbooks. A more general (and modern) definition should probably mention all switches as possible components, not just diodes. This would only require minor rewording on the opening paragraph as the additional content already exists on other pages and could simply be referenced. -Roger (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the article can't then focus exclusively on those circuits made up of diodes and capacitors and ignore any other kind of voltage doubler. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 4 July 2011
 * This is simple electronics, a voltage doubler is a few simple analog components, this GAR should be kept simple with a simple ref. Do not promote if it's not forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)