Talk:IOS 10/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

Copyright violation

Paragraph copy-pasted from TechCrunch, see report here. Review put on hold. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• The section that you say is a copyvio seems to be a statement from Apple and it also appears in a Mac Rumors article [[1]]. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with KAP03. That's a statement, which has also been posted to multiple other media outlets. It is clearly defined by the media as a quote, and I believed the blockquote formatting and "in full, the statement read" here on Wikipedia were good indicators of an actual quote. Normal facts should be rewritten, but I don't think actual statements should be... LocalNet (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that ProgrammingGeek is a totally inexperienced reviewer and should not be doing reviews without having some previous mentoring; neither should they be doing a review of Amazon.com. I already expressed concerns on the WP:GA talk page relating to another article. This article has already been put "on hold" before a review has even taken place. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this message here @Bungle: I appreciate that you're letting us know. Is there anything I/we should do, or does this situation need to be resolved by someone else? Let me know :) LocalNet (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The content in question is set out in quote form and is acknowledged as being the full quote. In my opinion the inclusion of this content does not constitute a copyright violation. Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.