Talk:AVG PC TuneUp/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DQ (t) (e) 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Status:  Passed -- DQ (t) (e) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Good work!

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   One little minor thing listed below

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

    Fixed up -- DQ (t) (e) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

    Fixed up -- DQ (t) (e) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

    Passed -- DQ (t) (e)

To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

Templates to use

{{Fixed}} —  Fixed {{Added}} —  Added {{Not done}} —  Not done {{Not sure}} — Not sure {{Doing}} —  Doing... {{Isdoing}} —  Example is doing... {{Tick}}, produces the tick alone — Y {{Cross}}, produces the cross alone — N {{Done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Done}} —  Done {{Not done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Not done}} — ✗ Not done {{Thank you}} — Thank you {{Resolved}}, tick with additional message — Resolved

•  Fixed Minor: Modules should be prefixed with "the" as they are an object and not a proper noun by themselves.
  • See Comments section on this. Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Fixed WP:MoS: MOS:CONSISTENCY, Fix problems is bolded, not italicezed.
• Sourcing: Is there a second opinon/review of "The author asserts that while disabled programs continue to consume disk space, they no longer affect startup time, shutdown time and system performance."?
•  Fixed Explanation: "The most notable feature is Windows Aero themes and visual effects." What does it do, what's notable about it?
• ✗ Not done Chart: Maybe a separate "Supported operating systems" chart indicating which versions are compatible with which versions of windows specifically.
  • Such a chart requires sources. A lot of it. I don't know any. However, one can safely assume that the supported operating systems are all compatible. Please advise in Comments section. Fleet Command (talk)
•  Fixed Time objective wording: "now displays editorial rating" The 'now' is not now.
•  Fixed Elaborate: With new modules, would be good to have some explanation on them. Otherwise it's just an update of new features which is not within NOTCATALOG #6.
  • See comments section. Fleet Command (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Fixed Confusing: "disable programs that impose significant system" ...?
•  Fixed MoS: "If the user try to start a disabled program again" --> Change Try to tries.
• ✗ Not done Reviews/WP:NPOV: Are there only 4+/5 reviews or are there negitive reviews?
  • I and the GA1 reviewer did our best to find reliable sources that provide negative reviews as well. We did not find any. See Talk:TuneUp_Utilities/GA1. Fleet Command (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Very well, was just double checking. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Regarding "Focus": Oh, please let me know what details it needs. "More details" is what I can supply immediately. Fleet Command (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Same as Elaborate new componets. I see that you list of the different functions, but let me play computer idiot, my first question is what the hell does this preformance optimizer do? does it clean out my hardware, software etc. It's like saying firefox is a web browser back in the '90s. People would probally be like what is a web browser. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You're right. I'll get to it. Just list everything that you think I missed and needs to be elaborated. Since you didn't object, I assuming that you have no problem with the Development section, since every component in referred there is already explain in the Features section. Fleet Command (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Fleet Command (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
        • "TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Repair Wizard" & "TuneUp Disk Doctor[16] and TuneUp Disk Space Explorer" + 1 more in 2004 still left unexplained. (I could be blind, please point them out if you did already) -- DQ (t) (e) 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

          • Oh, no, you are not "blind". But are you sure you have paid attention to these:

            "The Fix problems section provides access to TuneUp Repair Wizard which allows users to selectively repair problems that TuneUp Utilities cannot automatically detect."

            "Other components include a defragmentation tool, ..."

            "It also gives access to TuneUp Disk Space Explorer (a disk space analyzer)..."

            "Other items include a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK, ..."

            Right now, I am clarifying TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Disk Doctor a bit. But please let me get this straight: Do you want me to repeat what I said in Features section once more in Development section? (Redundancy?) I can do that. Just say the word. Fleet Command (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

          • Okay, here is another part I just added:

            Also in this category, there is TuneUp Disk Doctor. It can check the integrity of files stored on hard disk drives and salvage damaged files. It can also scan for physical defects known as bad sectors and isolate them. TuneUp Disk Doctor is a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK.

            And a modified part:

            Incorporates two more components: TuneUp Drive Defrag (the defragmentation tool) and TuneUp Repair Wizard (the troubleshooting tool).

            If you are still unsatisfied, please just say. Fleet Command (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

            •  Done Looks good to me from here. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sourcing: All reviews (cited in the article) seem to have taken notice of Program Deactivator. But they are just repeating author's assertion. Do you think I can safely assume that they are confirming it? Fleet Command (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm...I think that's a bit of original research, I would prefer it be verified by someone. Even if it's just a screenshot or in the documentation provided for the software. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done You have it: PC Magazine editor has actually benchmarked the product and has told that this component is indeed effective. Fleet Command (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Module names like Performance Optimizer are written in initial capitals. Are you sure module names are NOT proper nouns? Currently in Wikipedia, "Window" or "Microsoft Windows" are proper nouns, though I do know that we write "the Microsoft Windows operating system" because of "operating system". Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Microsoft is not an adjective, it's part of the proper noun and is trademarked (or whatever the word I am looking for is). Performance describes what kind of optimizer your using and is not trademarked. Also many programs have Performance Optimizers, it's not a unique thing like Microsoft Windows. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done Please double check. Fleet Command (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Elaborate new components' functionality: I have moved these explanations to feature review section after the previous GA reviewer asked me to do so. What do you advise? Fleet Command (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • See Regarding Focus Above. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Charts: Ok, if one does come availible in the future...feel free to add, all I was looking for there. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FleetCommand made some changes based on his interpretation of the recommendations above. They did not appear to be entirely beneficial or appropriate, so I attempted to rework them However, FC has repeatedly restored them with accusations of "edit warring"; I'm not willing to engage in such games over such a trivial matter, so I'll leave it up to the assessor to render judgement. --04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with Ckatz for the first part of the revert. FC w/ the second. This is not an edit war, and I'm glad the reverting stopped. One last comment before passing above. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)