Wikipedia:Peer review/Transformer/archive1

Transformer

This article on an important electrical topic has had quite a varied history, but has stabilised to a point here where I feel it would benefit from peer review. Any comments for improvement would be welcomed. Thanks! — BillC ^talk 10:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? — BillC ^talk 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn good to me!--Tugjob 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But Ive just made a few changes! See what U think.--Tugjob 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

Eek. Tugjob must know much more than I! I am certainly not the best person to review this article for you - I will try to find someone better. Here are the suggestions that I am able to offer. Feel free to disregard them, as they are obviously coming from a very ill-informed reader. I apologize.

Before I started this reading this article, I knew nothing about transformers. I am the (apparently) semi-educated, but curious reader coming to the article, asking "I wonder how a transformer works?" After reading it, I still only have the dimmest notion, I'm afraid, and I could not explain it to anyone else. I think that the problem lies in several areas:

• Diction: The article introduces the semi-educated reader to a lot of new terms and then uses all of them right away: magnetic coupling, windings, core, magnetic flux...(These are all in the first paragraph of the lead). Because the semi-educated reader has only the slimmest understanding of these terms, it is hard to read the article. I had to keep stopping and asking myself "what is the winding, again?" That is the level I was at.

• EX: The principles of the transformer are illustrated by consideration of a hypothetical ideal transformer consisting of two windings of zero resistance around a core of negligible reluctance. This is the first sentence in "Basic principles." I was trying to figure out what a "winding" was, what "zero resistance" is and what "negligible reluctance" might be. To not know all of that makes reading the article difficult.

• Organization: I wonder if it would be better to place the "Basic principles" section before the "History" section. That way, some of the language and the ideas presented in the "History" section would not be so confusing.
• Mathematical formulas: Mathematical formulas will scare a lot of people away from this page. Over at Introduction to general relativity (which I also peer reviewed - it has done an excellent job in appealing to the lay reader, I think), they have none. If you choose to have them, please explain the mathematical relationship in words. I don't consider this page one that only specialists will look at, do you?
• Linking: The article relies too much on linking, I think. All key concepts should be explained using at least a phrase or a sentence.

• EX: If a load impedance is connected to the secondary winding, a current will flow in the secondary circuit now created. - What is impedance? That seems crucial, but I didn't see it explained anywhere in the article (maybe I missed it?).

General content. I can say very little about this, I'm afraid.

• Might you link the events in the history section together a little bit more? Right now, the section reads like a prose list, rather than a story about the development of the transformer.
• Practical designs did not appear until the 1880s. - Why did they arise then? I'm intrigued.
• Many others have patents on transformers. - What others? Experimenters? Companies? Might you list a few?

Prose considerations. These issues I am a little more confident discussing. :)

• The article has many wordy (and sometimes awkward) sentences. Here are a few examples:

• EX: It has thus shaped the electricity supply industry, permitting generation to be located remotely from points of demand.
• EX: Within less than a decade, the transformer was instrumental during the "War of Currents" in seeing alternating current systems triumph over their direct current counterparts, a position in which they have remained dominant.
• EX: The principles of the transformer are illustrated by consideration of a hypothetical ideal transformer consisting of two windings of zero resistance around a core of negligible reluctance.
• EX: It is not itself directly a source of power loss, but results in poorer voltage regulation, causing the secondary voltage to fail to be directly proportional to the primary, particularly under heavy load.

• All numbers need to be contextualized. I did not understand statements such as "Amongst the simplest of electrical machines, the transformer is also one of the most efficient,[3] with large units attaining performances in excess of 99.75%." - What would 100% mean? It is 99.75% of what?
• Occasionally, there is some odd diction.

• All operate with the same basic principles, though a variety of transformer designs exist to perform specialized roles throughout home and industry. - Is "perform specialized roles" quite right? Can transformers "perform roles"?
• The transformer principle was demonstrated in 1831 by Michael Faraday - Is there a "transformer principle"? This sounded strange to me.
• Many of the places where you write "the ideal transformer", I think "an idea transformer" would sound better.
• Try to not to refer to anything as "clear" or "obvious"; it may not be clear to your reader and by using those words, you have just insulted them. If something really is obvious, it doesn't need to be stated. :)
• By impregnating the transformer with epoxy under a vacuum, air spaces within the windings are replaced with epoxy - Is "impregnating" a technical word? It sounded odd to me. I have some (ahem!) biological associations with the word.

• The paragraph beginning "William Stanley" in the "History" section has some stubby sentences.
• The article has too many passive sentences - they can be confusing and add to the wordiness in many sentences.
• The word "so" is used far too often in a colloquial, conversational sense.
• By this means, electrical energy fed into the primary circuit is transferred to the secondary. - By what means? I couldn't quite follow.
• The main disadvantages are higher cost and limited rating. - What rating?
• Polychlorinated biphenyl has properties that once favored its use as a coolant - What properties?

FYI: Places I became totally lost:

• The last paragraph of "Under load".
• The descriptions of the different kinds of energy loss. Too much to click on: "resistive heating"; "proximity effect"; "hysteresis"; "Eddy currents"
• Leaky transformers may be used to supply loads that exhibit negative resistance, such as electric arcs, mercury vapor lamps, and neon signs; or for safely handling loads that become periodically short-circuited such as electric arc welders. - Why negative resistance?
• The time-derivative term in Faraday's Law shows that the flux in the core is the integral of the applied voltage.
• If the flux in the core is sinusoidal, the relationship for either winding between its rms EMF E, and the supply frequency f, number of turns N, core cross-sectional area a and peak magnetic flux density B is given by the universal EMF equation - I remember the sine wave, but what does this mean?
• The physical limitations of the practical transformer may be brought together as an equivalent circuit model built around an ideal lossless transformer. What are the variables in this section for? I found that confusing.
• End of the "Polyphase transformers" section.
• The "Resonant transformers" section.

MOS considerations (only if you care about FA, etc.):

• There are a lot of links in this article (by necessity). Perhaps you could remove the obvious ones (such as to countries) and the repetitions (e.g. "War of Currents" in the "History" section).
• If you decide to take this article to FAC, I suggest you take a day to peruse the MOS and make sure that everything in the article squares with it. I had someone object to an article I submitted to FAC on the grounds of dash and date style.

I'm so very sorry that this isn't a better review. I am posting messages among my wiki-friends who are more knowledgeable on this topic to try and find someone to properly review this for you. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good review. Shows what the layman thinks. I was saying it looked pretty good from a technical point of view. Many , many edits ago, I believe someone tried to simplify this article, but other editors have complicated it again. Look back about 6 months to see it that version is any better.--Tugjob 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)