Talk:Jerusalem (computer virus)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 00:18, 12 April 2019 (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.	Article contains confusing jargon. Example from the first paragraph, "Some .EXE files are infected but do not grow because several overlays follow the genuine .EXE file in the same file" What does that mean? Some switching between present tense and past tense. Overall readability by a non-technical person is low. Most of the article is not written in prose, but just a list of bullet points.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section should summarize the article but in this article it contains the bulk of the article's content. It is not organized in a very relevant way- the most important aspects of the computer virus should be summarized in the first few sentences. Review WP:LEAD for more guidelines about this
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.	Many unreferenced facts in the lead that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Most of the bullet points contain references but I did not attempt to perform any verification of those references.
	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).	Most references are from antivirus vendors, the citation to the podcast would probably be challenged by some reviewers as not meeting WP:RS
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyvio detector shows strong correlation with the www.semago.eu blog site, but that blog appears to have been copied from the Wikipedia article and other sites. I reviewed the site that that blog claims as a source, and the same text does not occur there.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No coverage of the subject manner aside from some basic technical aspects. The article says the article was initially very common in its day, but includes no information about reactions or press coverage from the general public. The article is also very unclear as to what effect, or intended effect, the virus has from the perspective of the end user, and what the process of cleanup involved. Was there ever a responsible party found? Was there any newsworthy disruption caused by an infection from this virus? Provide more detail about how a user might get infected by this virus.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The vast majority of the article is a fairly disorganized list of variants that don't tell me much
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is unbiased
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No conflicts in the recent edit history
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.	There are no images. I would doubt that suitable images for a software program could be found, unless there was a screenshot of an infected computer, or something like that
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images
	7. Overall assessment.	Needs a considerable amount of content and polishing