Talk:Time-interleaved ADC

Review

The article is very well written and easy to understand, however just a suggestion to add more references from the literature and further study links can improve the quality of the article.

Thanks Muhammadrehan645 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your review and your suggestions! Paneappenasfornato (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia page as reference

Reference no. 3 is a Wikipedia article. As per Wikipedia policy you can't cite Wikipedia articles. In this case, the link earlier in the line is good enough; an academic source on the topic (I am sure there are many) would be better as a reference.

Leaving that aside, very clearly written and easy to understand! Shivaprsd (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your review and for the insight on the wikipedia reference, I have just changed it. Thank you again! Paneappenasfornato (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Review n. 3

The article is well written and interesting. Maybe you could try adding more references, since there are some quite long sections without any reference. I fixed the equations in your article following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics. The main problem was that tall fractions should not be inserted as inline text, they don't look good as they change the distance between different text lines. Also, math subscripts should be in roman and not italic font if they don't refer to a variable as for ISO-80000 norm. Other than that, congratulations for this new and interesting article! AcBCDE (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive words and your valuable work on the article! Paneappenasfornato (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)