Talk:Voltage doubler/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Initial review

The article is well-illustrated and has suitable citations. If I were writing it, I would like to expand on how each circuit works, so that one could reach an intuitive understanding of each one without having to refer to other sources or do an extensive circuit analysis. However, when I compare it to the description of voltage multipliers on pages 47–48 of The Art of Electronics (2nd ed.) I find this article is more extensive. So even though further improvement is possible, I consider it a good article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Detailed review

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   It would be nice to have free online sources of similar quality to those already here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   Images are especially good

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

July nomination

I have looked at the review from July. When I first read the article, I was surprised that there was any consideration of applying the term "voltage doubler" to anything other than a diode & capacitor circuit that has AC input and (possibly pulsating) DC output. Just to be sure, I checked that The Art of Electronics does not apply that term to anything other than the type of circuits shown in this article.

I notice the source from the July review is no longer included, so I don't need to express my view that there is a lot of overlap between physics and electronics engineering. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)