Talk:Distributed-element circuit

Distributed-element circuit is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by SpinningSpark at 23:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Electronics Unassessed

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Distributed-element circuit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that distributed element circuits include butterflies (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Distributed element circuit.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Distributed element circuit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll review this splendid article, which I found admirably informative, thorough, clear, and well-cited. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (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.	It is a model of clarity and conciseness.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The structure is straightforward, canonical, and suits the subject admirably.
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.	It is fully and properly cited.
	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).	The sources are excellent. Personally I'd favour using the Harvard mechanism to link the References to the Bibliography but this is not a GA requirement.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no sign of original research or editorialising in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is no sign of any copyright issue. Earwig is entirely happy.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems to a lay editor to be admirably comprehensive. The topics fit together logically and there are no discernible loose ends.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is no wandering off topic. The level of detail is even throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There is no sign of the adoption of a point of view.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. There has been no editing since mid-May.
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.	All the images are from Commons and appear to be correctly tagged there.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images contribute substantially to the article, often contributing insight as well as variety.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am more than satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. The article is a model of encyclopedic technical writing and I wish it well if it is intended for FAC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]