Talk:Alt attribute/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check: using Earwig's Copyvio detector, I found a couple of phrases used elsewhere: "used in HTML and XHTML documents to specify alternative text (alt text) that is to be rendered when the element to which it is applied cannot be rendered."; "for the img and area tags. It is optional for the input tag and the deprecated applet tag". This may be derive from WP:CIRC, but I've not looked deeply into it as I think in the circumstances WP:LIMITED can be said to apply.

I had seen those matches too, but they are instances of websites copying Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The two sentences that match are both found in this, which was posted in November 2015, but the matching text was already in the article at that time. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images. No alt text for the images? Maybe add 'alt=refer to caption'?

It is unfortunate and ironic that I forgot to post alt text on this article of all places. Unfortunately I copy-pasted the suggested wikicode that pops up when you upload to Commons and didn't think beyond that. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some script-suggested minor tweaks. Please revert any that seem unreasonable.

No complaints here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

"Internet Explorer 7 and earlier renders" - I think this should be "render". Maybe add "versions" after "earier"?

Done - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"which is not standards-compliant" - no standards have been introduced in the body text yet, so maybe expand this.

Done - I also added W3C's full name here since it felt like a natural place to do so, which alleviates the expansion concern in the Usage section mentioned below. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rationale for mentioning IE but not other browsers here?

IE is specifically mentioned because unlike Mozilla and the others, IE didn't follow HTML standards and displayed the alt text as a tooltip, leading to issues with how developers used the attribute, the other browsers don't seem to have had that problem. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the problematic browser gets the sources mentioning the problem. Per WP:DUE I didn't mention the browsers that are/were compliant because third-party sources don't bother to make a point of mentioning it, and the only sources I could find that did were the browser makers themselves, and even then those were throwaway mentions at best. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the Bugzilla page a suitable source for "This behavior led many web developers to misuse the alt attribute when they wished to display tooltips containing additional information about images"?

It's not a suitable source, and that's my fault I forgot to replace it when going through the article, but I've updated it with a source from a Glasgow University professor. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether linking the "HTML" in "HTML 1.2" to HTML would be useful - the link to 4.01 follows shortly afterwards. What do you think?

That sentence and the way it's wikilinked is a holdover from before I started working on the article and I had the same thought, but I think the reason that 4.01 is wikilinked and 1.2 isn't is because the 4.01 wikilink goes directly to the mention of 4.01 on the HTML article, but the 1.2 draft isn't mentioned by that name on that article so there's nothing direct to link it to; a wikilink would likely just confuse readers clicking on it. - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

"The W3C's web content accessibility" - expand W3C here, as the first mention in the body.

I added the expanded name in the History section as per the above comment. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

Seems fine. Somewhat US-centric but one non-US example is provided.

I did try to search for sources for lawsuits in places like India, China, or Japan to make it less Western focused, but these types of lawsuits tend to be in Western countries, mosty especially in the US because of the ADA. I did find sources in places like the UK related to website accessibility, but none that were specifically about the alt attribute seem to be mentioned in any reliable sources that I could find. - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Publisher/website not specified for "Why doesn't Mozilla display my alt tooltips?"

Done - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes lynx.invisible-island.net a reliable source?

That's the official website for the Lynx web browser, the browser being discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

What's the reason for including the Hickson link?

When I was trimming down the EL section I kept that one mainly because of his relevance in the world of HTML development and because it seemed like a fine enough resource for WP:EL, but I honestly didn't put too much thought into that section because per Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#Beyond the scope I was under the impression that the external links section is outside of the scope of the GA criteria. That said, I have no attachment to the link if you wanted to remove it (or the entire section). - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally not a fan of essays - it's too hard to distinguish between those that represent consensus and those which are the work of one or few editors. I would have thought that as GA criterion 1.b says "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." and MOS:LAYOUTEL is on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout page linked in the phrase, albeit as pretty much a link to another MOS page, that external links sections should be considered in a GA review. But as you've made a case for Hickson it's a moot point as there's a justification for including that one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead

Is Rendering (computer graphics) the right link for "rendered"?

It is not, and it's been reworded. - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to expand slightly on "an alt attribute for accessibility" in the lead.

I actually removed the "for accessibility" part because the W3C just recommends the use of the alt attribute as part of the standards, but it's specifically the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that go into the accessibility reasons, and also the accessibility aspect is covered in the second paragraph and I did expand that sentence a bit. - Aoidh (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so an passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you so much for taking the time to review this. Do you run that GA script at this point or is there something I need to do on my end? - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh I was just wondering which sub-category under Computing and engineering this fits best in - what do you think? Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I'd have to say it fits into "Websites and the Internet". - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.