Talk:Fishbowl Inventory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I'll point out all the improvements neccessary to make this article GA compliant in the table below. If you have any questions throughout the process please send me a message or just ask here. Retrolord (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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 part seems a bit out of place where it is now: The Mississippi State Department of Health,[9] Santa Barbara County, CA IT Network Division,[10] and several other government bodies use Fishbowl Inventory as an asset tracking system.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I am a bit concerned about this part: (aka ExpressTech Holdings). aka is too coloquial for an article, and this part is only mentioned in the intro. If its in the lead it should be expanded upon in a history section later.
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.	Citations needed for the Products section
	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).	Sufficient references for most things, apart from the products section
	2c. it contains no original research.	Atleast none that I can see.
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).	Article does not need to list every award the company has ever recieved. This section needs to be cut down significantly. Same with the products section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is article is far from being neutral. The article like an advertisement and is promotes the company. Possibly eligble for speedy deletion as content that is purely promotional?
	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

No changes have been made, and I'm concerned about the neutrality as well, so failing this. Wizardman 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)