Talk:Aqua Net/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figfires (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose needs significant improvement in order to be acceptable for a good article. The paragraph in the history section could be written a lot better. What source is stating that it became available at a certain time? You should never say "this source said X, another said X, and yet another said X." Also, in Wikipedia, longer paragraphs are preferred. You shouldn't be breaking a section up into single sentences as it bloats the section out. Additionally, I simply do not see a lot of information in this article at all. The lead "section" is a lead sentence. The article still needs significant expansion to even qualify for B class.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article does not comply with the words to watch and list incorporation. The list of events occuring in the history section is inappropriately placed and should simply be written as a paragraph. As for words to watch, NEVER use the word said. There are many words that work well as a substitute such as he stated, he asserted, he indicated, etc.. Also, try to avoid using notable in the text as it is on the border of being puffery which would be in violation of Wikipedia:NOPOV.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A decent list of references for an article of this size. They are appropriately displayed throughout the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A decent number of sources (not all or even a majority) appear to be heavy opinion based rather than factually based and would not support the material in the article. More factually based sources are needed verses opinion based ones. I read some of the sources and do not even see the purpose of some of them being in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did not see any original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism were discovered.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the topic in this article are quite sparse. The history section needs expansion to be more detailed as this product has existed for over 60 years. Also, I would expect to find a list of ingredients under composition. Only 2 ingredients are listed with their health effect issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Actually, quite the opposite. More detail is needed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article itself is pretty neutral. Borderline puffery in the lead sentence.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring or content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have their copyright status in their description.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images in the article are not really relevant enough to be included. They add nothing of value to the article. The descriptions are also unacceptable. The captions are superfluous and contain puffery. They promote the product more than provide encyclopedic information.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article needs a significant amount of work done to it to be a good article. Im also demoting the article from B Class as it fails B2 and B3. To be honest, an article of this size is a start class as this is still quite incomplete. I hope I didn't appear to be mean or rude in anyway, but this article simply isn't ready yet. Keep working on it and renominate it once you feel it is ready.

@Figfires: Just a quick note to say thank you for your detailed feedback. Although I don't agree with every criticism you made, I am nonetheless very grateful to you for helping me to see how the article looks through another person's eyes, and also for your many concrete suggestions for improvement. Much appreciated. When time allows, I will incorporate such of those suggestions as I can manage. Zazpot (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Just for reference, here is a high-end C-class article that I created and several others worked on. It shows what your article should look like in general. Take note of the image captions and how they describe what is going on in the image. Hope that helps some. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 10:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)