This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to have it achieve the status of "good article".
Thanks, Blewis87 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Expand the lead a little - see WP:LEAD for guidance.
- What's a MOSFET? Explain it a little before just using the acronym. The article needs to appeal to non-experts.
- Avoid spaces before citations per WP:CITE.
- Headings need to comply with WP:HEAD so See Also should be See also.
- Image caption "A Standard MOSFET" - standard doesn't need capitalising. Also, what relevance does this image have to the article? It's not clear to me.
- "seventies" 1970s.
- "The gate regions would sometimes fail to overlap the source and drain. This results in a non-working MOSFET" merge these sentences.
- "Innovations that made Self-Aligned Gate Technology possible" doesn't need to be bold and is overcapitalised.
- "Without these innovations, self-aligned gates would not have been possible." that's already pretty clear from the introduction to this part of the article.
- History section needs further citation and some work on the prose. Right now it's just a load of patent numbers, dates, authors, and article titles.
- "The importance of self-aligned gates comes in the process used to make them." what does this mean?
- Avoid lists of process steps - try writing out as prose.
- Number ranges use en-dash, not hyphen, to separate, per WP:DASH.
- See also section should be bullet pointed.
- Clean room image is used and mentioned in the caption but not in the article.
That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)