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

Reviewer: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on. I'll respond to the points below later today. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 12:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise. The spelling and grammar look correct, except for some small typos I've already fixed. Looks like you consistently use British English in the article which I've noted in the Talk page (not required for GA).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: Generally good at summarizing the article, but see below for specific feedback. Fixed, looks good. Layout: Looks good. Optional: if you can think of any similar toys, you can consider adding a See Also section. That section would be added before the References section. Words to watch: Good! Fiction: N/A List incorporation: N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yep!
	2b. 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).	See below. Fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks good!
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig report is 36.3% which is okay. It's mostly from the large quote from Jon Marshall. This is fine, but you could improve it further by reducing the size of this quote.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	After reviewing the sources, there is nothing I think is missing from the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No coatracks or other tangents.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I believe the article gives WP:DUE weight to the references cited.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yep!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yep!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I've asked about this here. I haven't yet received a response. Without a response I will approve as-is. Fixed, see discussion in the link above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

• I think in the spirit of MOS:CONTEXTLINK the first sentence should be Hackaball is an educational toy designed to teach school children computer programming. If you disagree, let me know, but in that case at the very least ball needs to be wikilinked since it has multiple possible definitions.
  • Altered to your suggestion - S
  • Looks good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you need to explain what the toy is earlier in the lead. In other words, you say that it's a ball, but only in the 4th sentence do you get around to explaining how it's used. I think you need to move the bits about the gyroscope and companion app to the second sentence of the lead. Then I think you need a paragraph break to circle back to the development and Kickstarter campaign.
  • Shifted around a bit, I haven't used a new paragraph since I feel the first paragraph would be too short, and per MOS:LEDELENGTH this should be fine as two paragraphs - S
  • Looks good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• According to MOS:LEADCITE, any content in the lead that might be challenged should have a citation (even if the same claim later in the article is cited). The following claims I think need to have a citation to abide by this rule:
  • ...Kickstarter campaign that reached its goal of $100,000 after 23 days.
  • ...Fast Company's Innovation by Design awards.
  • ...named one of Time magazine's best inventions of 2015...
  • ...won a bronze and silver award in the 2015 Lovie Awards.
    • All cited - S
    • Looks good, and all the sources you gave appear to support the claims. Thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Optional: In the infobox, I think "Also known as" is not appropriate since no reliable source in the article calls it "Rule Ball" (I understand that was the original working name, but that was before the product was developed).
  • Yes, I see what you mean. Removed - S
  • Looks good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It was conceptualised in 2013 by two interns at Made by Many—Ben King and Thomas Nadin—when they were given a side project to investigate the intersection of the Internet of Things with play. To tackle this, they aimed to make computer programming more available to six to ten-year-olds by using activities to teach programming. This block is cited with 3 references. The first reference does not support that they were interns working on a side project, and that they were shooting for the six-to-ten age group since the beginning. (The Fastcompany source used elsewhere in the article says the product is aimed at six to ten year olds, but it doesn't say it was this way from the start). I can't see the other 2 sources since I don't have access. But at the very least this should be changed.
  • Ok, I'll lay out my process here:
    • The internship problem should be fixed by an ABOUTSELF source now added
    • "six to ten-year-olds" is now changed to "children", which should be verified by the sources next to it
    • I removed a source that wasn't really doing anything, less clutter now
  • I hope this is ok - S
  • These all look good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Two weeks into their project, ...snip... or "sock[s] filled with a Raspberry Pi and some wires". This paragraph has 2 references. The first reference does not support the claims given in the first 3 sentences of the paragraph.
  • I've moved the first reference next to the clause it supports, hopefully it is now sufficiently clear that the second reference supports the main body of the text (which should be fine at the end of the para per WP:INCITE) - S
  • This is good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2014, Made by Many began testing Hackaball in school playgrounds; throughout production, Hackaball was tested with over 100 families with children of varying ages. This sentence has 2 references. The first reference does support that Hackaball was tested with over 100 families, but not the bit about school playgrounds. The second reference doesn't support this number.
  • Should now be fixed with a supplementary reference to an appropriate ABOUTSELF source that mentions both the year and playgrounds - S
  • Close, but I think you missed the part about the 2nd source (the Core77) not supporting this statement. It doesn't say anything about "100 families". If you agree, we should just remove this source from this sentence, it's already covered by FastCompany. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed now, sorry I missed that. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ...was launched on 3 March 2015. The goal was reached 23 days later. By its end on 2 April, the campaign raised over $240,000, with 2,300 backers contributing. This sentence and a half has 2 references. The first reference doesn't support this. The second doesn't support the dates here or the 23 days number.
  • Laying out process here:
    • "3 March 2015" is now covered by an ABOUTSELF source
    • second source removed, contradictory to figures quoted in other RS
    • I've removed the "23 days" sentence. This may well be true, but after inspecting other sources I don't feel comfortable citing this to only Made by Many.
      • I've altered the lede to reflect this
    • For the total, I've used a Wired source
    • This leaves the date and backer count. This would ideally be appropriately verified by the Kickstarter page (www.kickstarter.com/projects/hackaball/hackaball-a-programmable-ball-for-active-and-creat/) but this is blacklisted. In lieu of this, I used the ABOUTSELF source which has the 2,300 figure, and should be OK since it is backed up by the Kickstarter. As for the end date, I've used New Atlas reference I found which seems to be reliable (used widely on Wikipedia, has a decent readership and editorial structure).
  • Hope this works for you! - S
  • Makes sense to me, thanks! Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hackaball's internal electronics consist of a six-axis gyroscope, vibrator, nine LEDs, rechargeable battery, memory, microphone and a loudspeaker (with a selection of sound effects). This has 2 references. The first is mostly good but doesn't say anything about a microphone. The second only says anything about the gyroscope and LEDs (but didn't give a specific number of them).
  • Added a third reference that mentions the microphone (must've got mixed up with my Wired references) - S
  • Looks good, thanks. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• holds the pieces together and is used along with an internal absorber made of ABS and TPE plastics to make Hackaball shock-absorbent. This has 2 references. The first doesn't say anything about ABS and TPE plastic. I can't verify the second.
  • Replaced with an appropriate ABOUTSELF source - S
  • Makes sense. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Made by Many intended this to let children get closer to the inner workings of technology, which they might not be able to do often. Not supported by the reference.
  • Don't know where I got that from honestly, removed - S
  • Thank you. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• After assembling the two hemispheres using the silicon covering doesn't say anything about silicon. (and do you mean silicone?)
  • Added a second reference to clarify that this is silicone (with an e :) ) rubber that is used for the ball covering - S
  • Close, but I don't think the Core77 source says anything about silicone. Should be fine to just remove that. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should be fine, since I'm using that for "eye" and also (as of now) to clarify that it is silicone rubber. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mokadoshi, I think I have addressed all above. Sorry about getting my references so muddled: not like me usually. I hope this is now good for passing, if there's anything I've missed or that you are not satisfied with, please just ping me. Thank you for the review! Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just two small things and then this should be ready to approve. Mokadoshi (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mokadoshi: addressed again. After this review I will be going back to my retirement: if the talk page thread finds that the space image is not relevant after this review closes, I have no strong feeling on its removal. Possibly it could be replaced with a more pertinent image of a constellation with the same caption? Regardless, thank you for reviewing this, I hope you've enjoyed the process and will consider doing more GA reviews sometime :) All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your work on this article and thank you for your assistance with this review. I'm fine taking it from here. Take care, Mokadoshi (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]