Talk:ILoo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. Please fix disamb. links: April Fools (redirect page), April Fool and Loo. No invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Wikify Apple, Inc., and change "Waggener Edstrom" to Waggener Edstrom Worldwide
Fixed
"The iLoo and its public relations debacle" - is this too POV for the lead paragraph?
I'm not sure, it's called a debacle in Online Journalism Review. It's probably a debacle for microsoft given that they had to retract their statements twice, which is very unusual.

How about put debacle in quote marks and put a footnote to Online Journalism Review immeidately following the word? We can avoid having Wikipedia characterizing it.
Fixed.
Is "toiletry products" an apt phrase for this item?
Probably not...but I don't know of a more concise way to say it.

How about "Toilet-related products"?
Fixed.
" the facility would have a broadband connection via wireless 802.11b" - does this mean that 802.11b connectivity was used between the computers within the device and some remote internet source, or that the device would serve as a wi-fi hotspot for the immediate vicinity?
It seems clear that it was not to serve as a hotspot, as it says "the facility".

Perhaps it was clear circa 2003, but why would it use 802.11b rather than a land line if only the two computers in the unit are to be connected?
Because it's a portable toilet. You're welcome to change it...I just don't think its necessary.
Why use terms "portable toilet" and "stall" interchangably? Perhaps standardize on one, or consider "unit."
I've used unit...I don't want to use portable toilet too much to avoid excess repitition.
" stating the iLoo had been a legitimate project," -> " stating the iLoo had been a legitimate demonstration project," - they said it was never intended for widespread production and use, just "one of" See Ref 14
The Apr 30 press release states that it was meant to debut "at a majority of the summer season festivals."...however Microsoft later said that it was only meant to be a demo...I'm not sure what to put.

The point is that it was never a mass-production project, it was a limited-production or "demonstration" project.
Fixed.
"Prior to the cancellation, the iLoo was in "early phases" ->" Prior to the cancellation, an iLoo prototype was in the "early phases" (note missing space at start of sentence.)
Fixed
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
At 29K length, lead should be 3 paragraphs long. PLease add more to third paragraph of lead.
I've added the following "The iLoo was next in a series of successful initiatives by MSN UK which sought to introduce the internet in unusual locations, including MSN Street, MSN Park Bench and MSN Deckchair."
"MSN allows regional units to design their own marketing campaigns, and the U.K. division liked to run clever and innovative campaigns, in this case involving British potty humor." - attribute this sentence to someone other than Wikipedia.
I've added the source.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Did Cubitt ever take any further legal action against Microsoft? The article should state one way or the other what happened.
I don't have any source that says he did or didn't.

When would the statute of limitations run out on Cubitt taking action? I would think that he would have had to sue by now.

IANAL...Microsoft is known to settle quite often when it comes to IP infringement...I've added in "Neither Cubitt, nor Brunel University have taken public legal action against Microsoft."
What happened to Tracy Blacher's career within the company following the episode?
I'm not sure how that's relevant as it says no one was ever disciplined as a result of this.
MSN press release makes references to "the world’s first cyber park bench" - I would explain that by way of background. Was it a real product, and did it have a better reception by the public?
They were real products, though I can't find much on the wireless deck chair. I've added in a reference for the park bench.
The Wall Street Journal is probably the leading general business newspaper (as opposed to technology media) in the country. The fact that it drew coverage in the WSJ should be included.
Should I make a footnote listing the major newswires/providers who did cover the story: WSJ, AP, Rueters, USAToday, etc.? Yy.ou have WSJ in the External links already. I thought that given its unique role it deserves a mention in the text. It is much more mainstream than CNET, etc.

I've added an annotation listing some of the major news-providers including WSJ.
B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
A bit too much Microsoft bashing in word choice. Removing debacle and the sarcastic pull quote may fix this.
I've replaced the sarcastic quote with one of the other quotes...I'm not really sure how to reduce the Microsoft bashing...

Criticism is fine, but sarcastic quotes was a bit over the line.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I would change the fair use rationale from "To illustrate what the iLoo was" to "To illustrate how Microsoft presented the iLoo to the media, as further discussed in the article."
Fixed
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed what I could...let me know what more should be done.Smallman12q (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments above, I will do a second read after you make whatever changes you have in response to them. We are making progress. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some more...let me know what else needs to be done.(Thanks for the review!)Smallman12q (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 7 Reading

The article is much improved. Thank you for your hard work.

The MSN UK press release said that Microsoft was talking to toilet paper manufacturers about special URL paper. This is the main substantive diference with Cubitt, who sought sponsorship from Epson for on-site printing. Was there any press coverage on this point beyond the press release? It would be a way of showing the bona fides and scope of the Microsoft project?

Added additional refs.

" April Fools was more than month before"->" April Fools was almost a month before" - relevant period is the 29 days difference between April 1 and date of press release, not date of hoax claim.

Fixed.

CNET source, fn 7 says iLoo was "fitted with a Wi-Fi connection" - implying it would serve as a hot-spot. Without adding any OR, should the article note the lack of clarity as to the purpose of the wi-fi antenna?

It was fitted with a wi-fi connection....just the receiver though. The wi-fi atenna is what provided the internet connection to the unit...

The Microsoft iLoo was a portable unit designed for outdoor concerts and festivals. Was the Corbitt unit designed for such applications or was it intended for indoor public restrooms?

As it was featured at the Ideal home show...it was probably for use in one's home.

" Brunel University, he said "As it" - missing period? Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean...

I will make a guess as to where you want the period. If I am wrong, please correct me. Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review...I hope I'm making some progress=P.Smallman12q (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Congratulations on a Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]