Talk:Windows RT/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~==Comments by the Clown== I will review this article. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 25, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:
I have taken over the GA review of this article. Andrew³²⁷ 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1: Well-written?:

Quality of writing is neat. Some pointers, though:
LEAD: Per WP:LEADCITE, facts in the lede (unless deemed controversial) need not be cited as it appears again in the body.

(Andrew). Several small fixes needed, but nothing serious.

In paragraph three of Development, the Wikilink of "Win32" to Windows API is unlikely to help readers. Maybe drop "Win32" and "otherwise" from the sentence.
Paragraph four of the same section uses "officially" twice in one sentence and "launch" should be changed to "launched".
In Included software paragraph 2, "beginning on 8.1" should read "beginning with version 8.1".
Part of Hardware compatability is written in the future tense, even though RT has already been released.
The Devices paragraph one has a split infinitive, "to only use"; change to "only to use". Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2: Factually accurate?:

Well referenced throughout. Can see no unreferenced statements. However... Is reference number 48 reliable enough? It's a blog and reads like somebody's POV opinions on Window RT. Hosted on the reliable CIO website though.

(Andrew). Looks good. ✓ Pass Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3: Broad in coverage?:

There's a "Difference with Windows 8" section, but is it the same as a "Features" section?

(Andrew). The article is sufficiently broad. ✓ Pass Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4: Neutral point of view?:

Reads like a neutral article to me. Good.

(Andrew). More small suggestions:

The word "normal" in Device management should be changed to "other".
The level of detail about pre-launch public information in Reception is undue. The Verge's article isn't really an "investigative report" and the whole controversy could be summarized in one sentence. Something like Some members of the media claimed that Microsoft provided insufficient information about the differences between Windows 8 and Windows RT prior to launch. Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5: Article stability?:

No edit wars. Good.

(Andrew). Despite the volume of substantive edits over the past month, the article has remained sufficiently stable. ✓ Pass. Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6: Images in article: All images used in the article are on Wikimedia Commons, and tagged with the appropriate license tags. Good.

(Andrew). All images are appropriately tagged, but it would be nice to have higher quality on both. Not grounds for a GA fail by any means. ✓ Pass Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards to pricing, we don't know what price it is. The actual OEM cost of RT seems to be confidental, and doesn't matter since you can't buy it through such a channel to begin with. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that point removed. Thanks! (who's "we") ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for source 48, my personal solution would be to not rely on that single source, because I'm pretty sure numerous outlets have made that connection based on what I've read.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you replace it with a more reliable source then? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of features, aside from the caveats mentioned in the article, RT is identical to 8. That's why I send people there instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

It has been over a month since anything has been posted to this page. There have been a number of edits to the article in the past month. What is the status of the review, please? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if I took over this GA review?

I would be happy to pick up this review since it has been over a month without an update. Although I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait for consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that you want to take it over. Since both Bonkers and ViperSnake have been actively editing since you posted the above and neither has responded with any objections, I think you've done your part; it's been a week since I asked what was going on, which is plenty long enough. Though if you want to be thorough, you could put notifications on both of their talk pages, and ask for an immediate response. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll get started. I will post a revised evaluation within one week. Andrew³²⁷ 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, any word on when you might be ready to post something? It'll be two weeks tomorrow since your last post; I'd hate for this to languish once again. Again, thanks for volunteering to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apartment flooded, which put my computer out of commission and has set back my Wiki-editing. I hope to have the GA review finished in a few days. Andrew³²⁷ 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yow, sorry to hear that. I hope that you're editing means the computer (or a replacement) is functioning well. Thanks for persevering. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you can. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very close to meeting GA criteria and I see no reason why it couldn't pass within 24 hours. Let me know if you have any questions. Andrew³²⁷ 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The seven day deadline is coming up, but I plan to keep this GA review open for several weeks due to the fact that it took two months to get the review completed. Andrew³²⁷ 18:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are as complete as they are going to get at this point, so I'm closing and passing. Wizardman 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]