Talk:Windows 10/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!

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.	Several one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs and short paragraphs. Please merge these into other paragraphs, or expand them.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sect is good. However I see the article has been tagged with {{too long}}. Please explain. Who tagged it? Has this been discussed on the talk page? What about this discussion Talk:Windows_10#WP:SPLIT ? Is this ongoing still or going to be addressed?
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.	I added one or two cite needed tags that need to be addressed. Otherwise, most impressive.
	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).	Please go through and try to make sure all cites are formatted properly with as much cite info fields as possible. Consider standardizing with WP:CIT templates. There are a few bare links cited with no other info that should be formatted properly.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here. I particularly like the good use of secondary sources for the Reception sect, great job!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most definitely covers major aspects. See concerns as noted above that the article might be too long.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article tags as too long and this issue appears to still be unresolved.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see several talk page sections raising neutrality issues. Not necessarily a major thing, but please explain below how these were addressed amicably between all parties commenting. These include: Talk:Windows_10#Criticism_of_Windows_10, and Talk:Windows_10#NPOV_issue:_Operating_system_as_a_service, and again at Talk:Windows_10#NPOV_Issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Please explain, below, unstable periods in article edit history seen on 24 September 2015, 19 September 2015, 20 September 2015, and 12 September 2015.
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.	Please ask an admin to delete prior version of image at File:Windows 10 build 10240 (RTM).png. Please expand a bit more on File:Virtual Desktops in Windows 10.png fair use rationale, perhaps a numbered bullet list to strengthen fair use rationale on image page for durability into the future.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The {{very long}} tag was added by Tony0517. This article currently has a prose size of 45KB, which is acceptable. I have removed the tag. sst^flyer 03:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good for now. IFF the user never explained the rationale for the tag on the article talk page at the time, the tag can be removed. If the user did, the tag should be discussed. If the user chooses to add the tag back after now, there might be instability issues. Keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of File:Virtual Desktops in Windows 10.png fair use rationale: done. sst ✈ 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2b: consistent citations is a FA criterion, not a GA requirement. I have, however, fixed all bare URL citations with WP:REFILL. sst ✈ 11:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1a: most done. As for others, I do not want to violate criterion 3b. sst ✈ 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think JeffyP was correct with the image at File:Windows 10 build 10240 (RTM).png, and there should really be a lower resolution version uploaded and the larger prior versions deleted by an admin. — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JeffyP only reduced the file size of the image, not the resolution. Completely unnecessary, in my opinion. Also, Microsoft allows the use of these images, and in fact does not allow modification of screenshots of Microsoft products with modifications, apart from resizes. sst ✈ 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes sense, passed this one as GA. — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]