Talk:Numerically controlled oscillator/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]