Talk:Qualcomm Snapdragon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sovereign Sentinel (talk · contribs) 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks: no dead links. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Snapdragon system on chip (SOC) was announced in November 2006" - shouldn't that be SoC instead?

Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It also collaborated with Microsoft to optimize Windows 8 for Snapdragon semiconductors.[52]" Maybe Windows Phone 8 would be more accurate and offer higher clarity?

Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The current Snapdragon naming schema was implemented" - clearly a typo.

Not sure what you mean. Naming Schema appears to be a pretty common phrase[1] Spelling appears to be correct CorporateM (Talk) 14:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake…

Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing the Specifications section entirely. It is the only section of the article that is not stable, only relies on sources from the Qualcomm website, is biased towards WP:RECENTISM, and is redundant to content already in List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices.

I fully support this, but I also know if I do it someone will come out of the woodworks accusing me of censoring technical specs (yes this really does happen). Do you mind doing the honors? WP:COI prohibits me from making any potentially controversial edits. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing this article on hold. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	This article is literally rewritten from scratch to comply with GA criteria. No problems here
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	One thing I want to note is that more wikilinks to more basic technical topics can be added, per WP:UNDERLINK, However, this is not a GA requirement.
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.	Citation style is somewhat inconsistent, with inconsistent styling for names of single publications. However, this is not a GA requirement. This needs to be corrected if the article is to pass FA
	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).	All citations are from third-party reliable publications.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited, what else can I say?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Previously the article contained detailed information about the processors themselves. This has now been split to a new list page.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The tone of the article is very positive, but this is the consensus of third-party reliable sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The only unstable section of the article was "Specifications", which has now been removed.
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.	A non-free use rationale has been provided for the only image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The logo image is used for identification of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article meets the GA criteria.