Talk:Google Wave/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is below-standard, with many single sentences not consolidated into full paragraphs and, if I want to be picky, the typos "open source" (missing hyphen) and "third-parties". User reception should have at least a single-paragraph section (based on the weight that has received).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Missing citations to quite a lot of statements, such as the one about security being provided by TLS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Please watch out for WP:DUE when citing Ars technica's research as fact and the only opinion ("In retrospect..."). Also, "to which many of Wave's capabilities are ideally suited" is subjective and should not be cited as fact.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Insufficient screenshots. Might want to add some more, for example, for the extension installation interface (if there is one).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lots of work required.