Talk:BitLocker/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'm afraid that it falls short at the moment. See comments below
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Only one image used, has an appropriate Fair Use licence
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Only one image used, has an appropriate Fair Use licence
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Prose
 * "included with select editions of Windows Vista and later in January 2007" Meaning is unclear here. I think you mean "included with Windows Vista in January 2007 and select editions of later editions" ?
 * Fixed by deleting "select" and "in January 2007". "included with Windows Vista and later" should be enough. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Microsoft eDrive is a specification for storage devices to allow compliant storage devices to use its built-in encryption" Meaning is unclear; by "its" is BitLocker or eDrive being referred to?
 * Fixed by a full rewording and update. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "encrypting other volumes could be achieved through an included command-line tool" Nice to have a link to "command line tool", but what was the name of the tool?
 * Fixed by a rewording. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * MOS
 * "core edition of Windows 8.1 include device encryption" No need for bold text here, per MOS:BOLD
 * Endorsed by MOS. MOS:BOLD endorses boldface for the following case: 'To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (e.g. sub-topics of the article's topic, rather than the synonyms as already boldfaced per the above)' In this case, device encryption redirects there. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I am astonished though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sourcing
 * Three dot point paragraphs in "Encryption modes" need references (probably 23)
 * As of Revision 754399865, the source for these bullet points is #25. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Last point in "Encryption modes" needs a reference
 * Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th paragraphs in "Operation" section require references
 * Laste remaining action item. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3rd and 4th paragraphs in "Security concerns" section require references
 * Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * References
 * 21 doesn't go to the right place
 * Fixed. The source was revived using Web Archive. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 42 is broken
 * Fixed. The source was revived using Web Archive. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Second external link is broken
 * Nothing to fix. Must have been a momentary server down time. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Placing on hold. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this in the next few days. Thanks for the review!  FalconK (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)'
 * Still one bit remaining. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I read you loud and clear, . If everything goes according to plan, I can handle it on Sunday. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . It is done. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)