Talk:National Strategic Computing Initiative/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by TheDragonFire in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) 06:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I'm concerned that the lead does not quite summarize the body of the article sufficiently, but that should fixed at the same time as 3A.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- The article would benefit from more in depth coverage of the initiative's activities, rather than describing them in such generalities.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Once the issues in 3A are resolved, it will be far easier to come to a conclusion regarding this criteria. As it is currently written, the article spends a lot of time regurgitating government rhetoric, but that may be easier to balance once there is more coverage in general.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
@Antony-22: Hey! I've completed my initial review of the article. Your response and assistance in working through the issues I've raised would be appreciated. My general comments are that the article is good, but if another one or two sections about the length of "History" can be written discussing the initiative's activities, then I'd probably be in a better position to polish things and pass the article. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @TheDragonFire: Thanks for the review; I'll try to get to these improvements this weekend. I'd like to point out that the initiative doesn't actually have any real activities currently (with the exception of some pre-existing programs in the Department of Energy), since it hasn't been funded yet. I'll make this more obvious in the article when I revise it. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Thanks again for your work on the article. At this point, we're a still a while off good article status, and I'm probably still happy with the article's C-class assessment. I'd appreciate review by an editor who understands the topic a little more though. Any editor is welcome to close this GA review as failed at any time. I will close it myself in a little bit if there is no further progress. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the extended delay. Give me a couple more days to attend to this; if I haven't made improvements by the end of the weekend you can close the nomination. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to sit down and make the necessary expansions in a timely manner after all—things are much busier for me now than when I nominated this article in January! Thanks for your time reviewing the article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Hey! That's all good. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with any future GAN endeavours. Feel free to ping me if you'd like informal comments on anything, but I will leave a future GAN to another reviewer. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Antony-22: Thanks again for your work on the article. At this point, we're a still a while off good article status, and I'm probably still happy with the article's C-class assessment. I'd appreciate review by an editor who understands the topic a little more though. Any editor is welcome to close this GA review as failed at any time. I will close it myself in a little bit if there is no further progress. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)