Talk:Braking chopper/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 13:28, 10 May 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):

   Lead is too short. The lists should be converted to prose. It is best not to have a benefits and drawback sections, they should be mentioned in other sections. The applications is too much like an instruction manual.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This article needs more inline citations. All the lists are uncited and the last section has no cites.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is very short. No history of development. Flux breaking's relationship to Braking Chopper is not made clear in the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A "benefits" and "drawbacks" section (especially in list form) can lend undue weight and present things out of context.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Captions could be a bit more descriptive

7. Overall: Sorry. Too much work needs to be done to get this to GA standard.

   Pass/Fail: