Talk:HTC Dream/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zach Vega (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

My initial impression with this article is that it's very strong, but my opinion often changes as I get further into the review.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead section needs to talk about the hardware and go into the software a little bit more.
...And it now does.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
The refs are a mess. The dates are inconsistent in format, there's dead links, and work and publisher are mixed up all the time.
Some problems remain, but much better.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Yes, it's good with scope.

B. Focused:
Pretty good job on this.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars or vandalism. Good.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images are from Wikimedia Commons.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
You have a photo of the phone running Android 1.6, and a photo of Android 1.6. Redundant much? Also, try to find one or two more photos. This isn't required to pass GAN, just a nice addition.
This can be dealt with outside of the GAN.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is going pretty well, it's just that we have a few more issues to take care of. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on improving the article! Zach Vega (talk to me) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]