Talk:Mechanical–electrical analogies/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than time that someone bravely agreed to review this fine but somewhat forbidding article. Fortunately it's so clearly and elegantly written that even my creaky old school physics had no trouble reading it through with the feeling that I was understanding it all. So here goes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose: ok, though I did flicker over "one, unique"; copyright: spot checks all ok; spelling: ok; grammar: ok
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: ok Layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Clearly yes.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	They seem unimpeachable. Essentially everything is cited to solid textbooks. Spot checks all passed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It gives the impression of covering the subject not just in main aspects but comprehensively. The structure (Impedance, Mobility and 'Through and across' analogies, each with translational, rotational and acoustical subsections) seems irreproachably solid.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Whole content is on-topic, and level of detail seems even and appropriate throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No sign of any kind of commercial or other bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No significant recent changes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one and only image, by nom, is properly licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is relevant and captioned. I would like to see more in the way of illustration - a photo of Clerk Maxwell would be welcome, for instance. It occurred to me that it might be nice also to have an illustration of the analogy of pressure and volume flow rate with voltage and current, but this certainly isn't a requirement.
	7. Overall assessment.	It's a shame that Nickele, Firestone, Trent and Paynter are all represented only by redlinks: this says something about how much these engineering articles are helping to fill a gap in the encyclopedia. Of course these represent promising avenues for further work. Overall, I found the article admirably clear and well-constructed.