Talk:Fastra II/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sayantan m (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article as soon as possible.--Sayantan m 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Check Against GA criteria

I'll finish the check completely in next few days. Meanwhile editors please try to resolve the problems I'm stating. It'll help save our time.--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 03:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Review and comments

Despite several improvements from the reviews of the first two GA attempts, I'm afraid, the article is now standing very loose and the updates look patchy. I must say this article needs a good amount of editing to make itself a GA. I have some advices which, I think, will help the article to pass the GA review this time.

• First I want the editors to take a look at the articles such as Cray Jaguar and IBM Roadrunner which may not be up to the up to the GA standard but have several plus points in comparison to Fastra II.
  •  Fixed
• Add italics to the word Fastra II (and Fastra I) throughout the article because it's a name.
  •  Fixed
• Add another section containing the possible uses and the places where it is being used currently. This section will obviously contain the improvements that was delivered by the Fastra II as well as its drawbacks. (I think it is possible to merge this new section with "Benchmarks.")
  •  Fixed
• I find the sources very reliable. But adding more details will require more sources. Make sure they are reliable.
  •  Fixed
• Out of six references, five are from the official website and is from the PC World website. Try to add more comments, reviews and criticisms made by other people. Otherwise the whole article will introduce a bias.
  •  Fixed

Here is a detailed review of the article.

Lead

• This section says "It was built in late 2009 by the Belgium Internet computer shop Tones.be as the successor to the Fastra I (built in 2008)." But the section 2 says "The computer was built as a researching and demonstration project and idea, by the Astra group of researchers at the Vision Lab in the University of Antwerp..." Which one is correct? I think both are. But this Tones.be has smaller contributions than researchers of University of Antwerp. The lead needs to mention both of them.
  •  Fixed
• Also you need to mention the name of ASUS as their collaborator.
  •  Fixed
• Is the name of the Belgium company Tones.be or just Tones? The video on the official website says the name is only Tones. Tones.be is the name of the company's website.
  •  Fixed
• The lead is supposed to present a gist of the whole article. Make sure it does that properly.
  • I think it's good already. HeyMid (contribs) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Since the lead is small as well as the article the picture should not cross 220px limit. It is now looking irritatingly large.
  •  Fixed

Development

• As Fastra I was Fastra II's predecessor, a reader will surely want to know the background of building Fastra II and the drawbacks of Fastra I which motivated the researchers to build a better one.
  •  Fixed
• The second paragraph obviously in wrong place. It should be in section 4.
  •  Fixed

Issues

• This should be a subsection of the previous section since handling of drawbacks is a part of the entire development process.
  •  Fixed
• I don't understand why 32 BIOS caused boot failure. You need to add some explanation for a general reader.
  •  Fixed
• Add the details of flexible PCI Express cables according to the video.
  •  Fixed

Benchmarks

• The benchmarks page on the official website(http://fastra2.ua.ac.be/?page_id=53) has a lot of details. Add some of them to make it a compact section.
  •  Fixed
• Also try to provide some graphs (under a fair-use rationale if they are copyrighted) those are there on the official page.
  •  Fixed

Full specifications

• Change the title to "specification."
  •  Fixed
• Present the information on a tabular form.
  •  Fixed

Overall

I'm putting this article for seven days hold. After that I'll check the improvements.--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 03:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. By the way, could you explain why you are neutral in the stability of this article? I see no issues in that part. HeyMid (contribs) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just because I haven't checked that part and I have to wait until the article is taking a good shape.--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed I think I've now done as much as I can with this article. If there is anything more you want done in the article before passing this good article review, please let me know here. Thanks. HeyMid (contribs) 13:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've done a lot for this article. I'm a little busy right now. So I'll check this article on next Saturday or Sunday. But just for a rough review I think the Use section needs more refs. That's all for now. Thanks--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HeyMid. This article is in need of some large changes. Several sections are required to be fleshed out. I think the lead is very poorly written (follow WP:LEAD). I've done some edits myself. But more edits are required. I merged the the sections "Use" and "Impression" to a single one named "Application and reception." More details can be added here (mostly from here). Also, since an infobox is already added I think the table for specification can be replaced by prose details. And as the article stands now, I think it can go up to GA very soon. So, I'm not passing it to GA status right now. I'm sticking with it. Keep up the good work. I'll try to help occasionally. Thanks. --Sayantan (talk|contribs) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.- There is a good image in this page showing the difference of resolution offered by Fastra I and Fastra II. I think it'll do good to illustrate the article. I wanted to upload it but wasn't sure of the license. Can you please upload it under a proper license?--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, it's hard to improve the lead when you just call it "poor" – could you explain here? Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article's body – I think the lead in this article meets that statement. Also, what do you mean that several sections needs to be "fleshed out"? Finally, what can I write with that comparison image I just uploaded? Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Status?

I am wondering about the current status of the review? I checked the article and made a minor edit, but noticed that Heymid addressed all the points from the reviewer. I get the feeling that somehow, it was forgotten to continue/close the review? --DeVerm (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Italics?

WP:MOS says, "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major revered religious works (the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud)." I don't think that computer model names or computer program titles should be italicized, but I am open to correction. Racepacket (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. If Sayantan doesn't re-join this review tomorrow or so, I will strip the italics before passing the article. --DeVerm (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Fixed --DeVerm (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC).