Elastance has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 5, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Elastance appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the term elastance, the inverse of capacitance, was coined by Oliver Heaviside to promote an analogy of a capacitor as a spring rather than a container of charge? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elastance.

"If voltage is taken to be force and current velocity, elastance corresponds to the elastic constant of a spring."

does that mean volatage is taken to be the current velocity or is the current taken as velocity? -Iopq 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

find a source, or AFD this 129.93.158.194 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's more than time someone reviewed this. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is little to criticise in this well-written and fully-cited article which is easily of GA quality. I have only a few very minor suggestions.

• I wonder if it's wise to use punctuation in equations? The two equations in Usage are followed by a comma and a period, respectively, using the typeface of the equations. It seems that equations are often left unpunctuated.

• This is the established convention, see MOS:MATH#PUNC. Expressions are punctuated as if they were part of the running text. It is not only the convention on Wikipedia, but it is followed by all mathematical works and textbooks. I tend to agree that it is unnecessary clutter that does not really add any clarity. But this article is not the place to fight off the rest of the world. In any case, there are certain editors here who dedicate their time to methodically adding punctuation to math expressions throughout the pedia, so it would get put back eventually anyhow. SpinningSpark 20:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost be tempted to insert a smiley icon here.

• It might be helpful to give a date for Cauer's work in the text.

• Done. SpinningSpark 20:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In History, the list "such as impedance ... conductance and so on." would be better as "such as impedance ... and conductance."

*Done. SpinningSpark 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some older editors might prefer "a result of Heaviside following" to be written "a result of Heaviside's following".

• Well I'm pretty old and I don't get the need for a possessive here. "Following" is the action of Heaviside, not the bunch of groupies who follow Heaviside. 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Thus elastivity rather than elasticity." isn't a sentence. Perhaps begin "Thus he chose...".

• Done. SpinningSpark 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be helpful to wikilink the Energy domain terms (left-hand column) in the table in The Maxwellian analogy.

• There is a little overlinking used in a helpful way.

• There is no sign of plagiarism.

Summary

This is a fine and fascinating article on the history and substance of what would otherwise have seemed an obscure electrical engineering topic, and a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was going to deal with your point about wikilinking the table today. I stopped yesterday after being horrified to find that electrical science is actually a redlink. I'll create a redirect, but how does that not have an article? SpinningSpark 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, and yes, it's very odd how some things slip through the net. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]