Talk:The Open Definition/GA1
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Sohom Datta in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Buidhe paid (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Gonna take a stab at this. Sohom (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- and it has become
somethingof a standard. - I think discussing Gartner's alternative would be DUE here.
- Done
- Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in. Why?
- Expanded
- Made some small CE edits
- Source review is pending
- Looking at the Martin 2022 source, it might make more sense to talk in brief (maybe just one line) about David Wiley's interpretation of the open-content as well as Bruce Peren's definition (again a single line) since those seem relevant to the content at hand.
- Done
- Sourcing seems to check out
- MOS tends to prefer that there are no citations in the lede, with the lede being mostly a summary of content in the article.
- It is, but former names are expected to be included in the lead and direct quotations have to be cited even if they summarize the body.
- The rest seems great, thanks for working on this article. :) Sohom (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 July 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.