Talk:Pocket Casts/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: ObserveOwl (talk · contribs) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

For the October drive, I'll take this one first.

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

I am going to list my suggestions for improving the prose below in chronological order, updating it as I go. Lazman321 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And I'm already done. Lazman321 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is just a general suggestion, but the exclusion or inclusion of serial commas in lists of more than three items should be consistent throughout the article.
• Pocket Casts launched for iOS and Android in 2011," - "Shift Jelly launched Pocket Casts for iOS and Android in 2011,"
• "Pocket Casts received its first launch on January 27, 2011 for iOS" - "Pocket Casts received its first launch on January 27, 2011, for iOS"
• "development focused on the Android version due to increased usage as compared to the iOS version." - "development focused on the Android version due to increased usage compared to the iOS version."
• "...followed by a Material Design update in 2015." - Is there a way to make this clearer?
• "Filters are available to organize specific episodes; these can also be placed onto an Up Next queue, which can sync across devices, or be downloaded manually or automatically." - Please rewrite for clarity.
• "Users were formerly required to pay to download Pocket Casts;" - "Formerly, users were required to pay to download Pocket Casts;"
• "..would be offered three months of Pocket Casts Plus, but following consumer backlash, free lifetime access was given instead." - "would be offered three months of Pocket Casts Plus. Following consumer backlash, free lifetime access was given instead."
• "The podcast discovery experience was deemed..." - "Duffy deemed the podcast discovery experience..."
• "...and criticised Apple's role as a negotiator between the CAC and app developers." - "...and criticized Apple's role as a negotiator between the CAC and app developers."

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW are all met, and MOS:LIST and MOS:FICTION don't really apply here. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed a properly formatted list of references. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

The only two sources I'm concerned with are the TechCrunch and The Next Web sources. On WP:RSP, the reliability of both have been questioned. However, the authors of both sources do appear to have prior experience in technology journalism and the information support isn't too controversial. Regardless, if you can find better sources, please do so. Lazman321 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm - for TechChrunch, RSP states, "consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog". Paul Sawers is listed as a staff member, and I don't see signs of "conflict of interest" or such, as cautioned by RSP. Regarding The Next Web, I really cannot find better sources about the 2014 Pocket Casts web launch anywhere else, and yes, the author used to write frequently for ZDNET between 2010 and 2013. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I could cite the official blog post, but... could both suffice, maybe? ObserveOwl (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose so. This was more a request than a demand anyway, so I'd be willing to support including both the blog posts and the sources mentioned above. Lazman321 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2c - No original research

For this review, I'll start with a source check to ensure that the information in this article is properly sourced. Lazman321 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am finished. Only a few minor things to check, but overall, I am very impressed with how good this article's looking source-wise. Great job! Lazman321 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

I didn't really see any copyright violations during the source check, and the copyvio detector had at most a score of 7.4%. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

It appears its main aspects—its background, features, reception, and other notable events—appears to be covered thoroughly here. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion.

3b - Focused

There isn't a moment where the article strays off-topic or provides excessive detail. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion.

4 - Neutral

The only thing I would rephrase for neutrality is under the China App Store removal sub-section. I think "highlighting the podcasting media's openness." should be rephrased to clarify that their refusal to censor podcasts upon China's request was because of their stance against government censorship. Aside from that, everything else looks fine. The opinions in the reception section are properly attributed and the article doesn't seem promotional. Lazman321 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

5 - Stable

Considering that three edits made since your nomination were all very minor, this article is stable and does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The images appear to have valid copyright tags. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The only three images in this article, a logo and two screenshots, are relevant to the topic. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

I'm honestly impressed with how much in good shape this article appears to be already. To address the few issues I did find, I'm putting this  On hold for seven days. Lazman321 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl: Whoops, forgot to ping you. Lazman321 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Thank you for the review! All done. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Passed Lazman321 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2024 (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.