Talk:Mobility analogy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm printing it out and taking a look, to see if this is within my capabilities. I'll report back in a couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Daniel, and sorry for costing you the paper! SpinningSpark 07:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about that; I think a hard-copy review should be standard as part of any attempt at recognition. It's easier to catch copy problems, at the very least (and besides, this was only six pages).

I am pleased to say that after fixing two minor copy problems, I am passing this quite readily. I thought, when I skimmed it and looked at the equations, I'd be nearly lost—and I am a pretty intelligent reader, and I'm hardly ignorant of the broader principles of the underlying science.

But, thanks to the article's scrupulous adherence to the conventions of English grammar and spelling, I understood this concept a lot better than I had initially thought possible. It helped to read about the real-world applications (If you could get a diagram, or a photo, or even a video of some sort showing how that plunger used in F1 works, that would be the best possible improvement to the article in the future).

Great work! Excellent! Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once again for reviewing a difficult article. I've added your copyedits to the sister article, Impedance analogy. By the way, that one also passed GA with little comment. I'm glad I now have a (in effect) a second opinion on that review, I was worried it had not been reviewed thoroughly but you have now put my mind at rest. SpinningSpark 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)