Talk:Mobli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 07:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I generally view the article, as it is, as rather incomplete:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose should be more consolidated into paragraphs; it currently doesn't flow very well. Many statements lack elaboration. I'm not impressed by the sentences on a new product in 2013 - "product" is not likely the best term for a web service. The lead should be more descriptive. The reception section can be expanded by a lot, definitely beyond the opinions of just two. The business model section needs expansion.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Need more citations such as for the statement about HTML5 being abandoned. Although it isn't a big deal to me, I'd like to see a little more variety in the sources; I don't think that set of sources necessarily provides good citations for the scope of this article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Prose needs to be more focused, as detailed above. This article reads much like a list of facts rather than one contiguous descriptive, well-linked page.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The reception section, by presenting just two views, lends WP:UNDUE weight to them.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
I don't see the value in the image of that investor. I'd like more screenshots, if possible, of Mobli's interface.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Needs a lot more work to reach GA quality.