Talk:Dansk Datamatik Center/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some c/e done, also see comments below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ideally there would be identifiers such as isbn for all print sources, but I don't see that as necessary for GA level.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "80 Kb code and 110 Kb data" I assume this is Kilobit but I'm not sure. It should be specified in the article.
• "Well-formedness criteria were used to supply additional constraints on operations beyond what was defined by the abstract syntax." I am not quite sure what this means, possibly it should be rewritten to be more clear or include relevant wikilinks.
• the Vienna Development Method — I think it would benefit from a bit more explanation what this is
• What is OEM?
• "A year later DDC-I, Inc. followed in the United States" doesn't explain the connection
• "seeding them with as many as a hundred software designers and developers who had worked at DDC" -> the verb "seeding" is unnecessary jargon

(t · c) buidhe 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks very much for taking on this review. I believe I have now made changes to address all of your listed comments. I also looked at your direct copyedits and I am fine with them, although in one case I further elaborated on the point being made. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)