Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
Reviewer: Zach Vega (talk · contribs ) 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [ reply ]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
My initial impression with this article is that it's very strong, but my opinion often changes as I get further into the review.
Is it reasonably well written ?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
B. MoS compliance for lead , layout , words to watch , fiction , and lists :
The lead section needs to talk about the hardware and go into the software a little bit more.
...And it now does.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable ?
A. Has an appropriate reference section :
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary :
The refs are a mess. The dates are inconsistent in format, there's dead links, and work and publisher are mixed up all the time.
Some problems remain, but much better.
C. No original research :
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. Major aspects :
Yes, it's good with scope.
B. Focused :
Pretty good job on this.
Is it neutral ?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable ?
No edit wars , etc:
No edit wars or vandalism. Good.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status , and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content :
All images are from Wikimedia Commons.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions :
You have a photo of the phone running Android 1.6, and a photo of Android 1.6. Redundant much? Also, try to find one or two more photos. This isn't required to pass GAN, just a nice addition.
This can be dealt with outside of the GAN.
Overall :
Pass or Fail:
The article is going pretty well, it's just that we have a few more issues to take care of. Zach Vega (talk to me ) 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [ reply ]
Fixed. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [ reply ]
Good job on improving the article! Zach Vega (talk to me ) 19:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [ reply ]