Talk:Transformer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QrTTf7fH (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm planning to review this article soon (In the next 72 h). Regards and thanks to the editors for their dedication and work. --QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi. This review is based on the latest version of the Article in the moment that it was written (Including small modifications of my own described in this review).

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   I found a DuckDuckGo hit of a part of the article text in [1]. This page contains the text “cm3” as such, rather than properly formated, a sign of careless copy-pasting and so it seems to me like the aforesaid web page is plagiarizing Wikipedia rather than the other way around. I searched other 3 pieces of the article with no results showing a sign of plagiarism.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   See comments below.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Transformers don't seem to be a controversial topic, and I have seen no conflicting information to the way it's presented in the article.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Thanks for all the authors of this article and congratulations.

I could access a few of the sources used in the article. Here's the fragments with inline citations that I attempted to verify and the results:

“Ideal transformer” section:

“According to Faraday's law of induction, since the same magnetic flux passes through both the primary and secondary windings in an ideal transformer”: Failed. The pages used for the citation describe board aspects of transformers and a section about the physics of transformers begins there as well but there was no mention of this claim.

“a voltage is induced in each winding, according to eq. (1) in the secondary winding case, according to eq. (2) in the primary winding case.”: Passed. Both the source and the Wikipedia article on electromagnetic induction support the equations with a leading “−” due to Lenz's law (And explicitly mention Lenz's law); As I understand it, the sign here has a physical significance. Given a coil with a current through it in a fixed direction, it's a matter of sign convention whether to describe the resulting magnetic field in one direction or the other, but whatever the choice is, the voltage generated by changing this magnetic field (Either by a change in current or an externally applied magnetic field, as in a transformer secondary winding) is opposite in sign to the rate of change of the magnetic field. I inserting the sign to make the equations verifiable.

“The primary emf is sometimes termed counter emf.”: Passed. The web reference calls it “back-emf” and so does Heathcote's J & P Transformer Book but the corresponding Wikipedia article has sources for the name used here. Note that the reference for this fragment is a self‐published source and may not be suitable for providing verifiability, though it seems very useful. Consider changing it to an external link.

“The transformer winding voltage ratio is thus shown to be directly proportion to the winding turns ratio according to eq. (3).”: Passed. Given the verifiability of eq. (1) and (2), this could be considered routine calculations needing no additional sources according to my understanding of Wikipedia policy. I couldn't access the sources for this claims, however, but Heathcote's book support this as well.

“Polarity” section: Passed. Verified in Kothari and Nagrath; and Withaker.

Other possible issues with references:

Page numbers in references to Say's Alternating Current Machines are missing in 4 citations, but I don't have access to this source.

Miscellaneous:

“Percent impedance” was mentioned, but there was no mention of what it is. I added a footnote regarding its meaning as used in the article and a corresponding reference.

I substituted the normal spaces used in expressing a quantity as a numerical term and a unit with non breaking spaces.