Talk:BlackBerry Bold 9700/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Prism   △

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 9) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 10) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 11) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 12) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 13) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 14) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 15) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 16) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 17) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 18) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 19) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 20) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 21) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 22) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license) (Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 License)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

Check for clarity, flow and neutrality: (I suggest you reword the following. Please feel free to disagree.)
 * 1) "Other visual changes were carried out in order to appeal both men and women."
 * I changed it to both sexes.
 * 1) "Upon its release, the BlackBerry Bold 9700 garnered generally positive reception from critics." (shorten?)
 * Shortened.
 * 1) "The first rumor reported that a trio of devices were being developed as high-end smartphones, codenamed Onyx, Driftwood and Magnum." (rumor was … ? Recommend replacing "rumor" with "speculation" and it’s synonyms throughout.)
 * Replaced.
 * 1) "The same day, other information regarding technicalities were revealed on a surfaced AT&T filesheet about the smartphone." (jargon – reword for the nonspecialist reader.)
 * Is it better now?
 * 1) "A previous prototype with a trackball was put up for sale on eBay, where it passed the mark of $600;[7] four days later, a pre-launch list of then-upcoming smartphones for AT&T surfaced online on August 9, 2009, which listed the device." (Make it clear and easy by breaking into short sentences.)
 * The sentences are now separated.
 * 1) Can you rephrase the second para of the Announcement and release subsection to boost clarity and flow? The para is too unstructured without clear and easy flow. (The para starts with Germany, talks of "select business costumers" (country?), then moves to US, then a Thai website, mixes up North America and Canada, returns back to US and finally to "Team Canada")
 * I think it's better now.
 * 1) "The device was officially presented in Bochum, Germany, where it was entirely developed, on October 21, 2009 by BlackBerry (then known as RIM) vice chairman Mike Lazaridis." (Can you simplify?)
 * Simplified to only cover the essential.
 * 1) "Boy Genius Report reported on November 4 of that year that the smartphone would be available early five days later for "select business costumers"."
 * Reworded.
 * 1) Can you rephrase the Hardware subsection to boost clarity and flow? The para is too non-encyclopedic, I believe, and reads more like a technical manual. I’d recommend simple encyclopedic language. I’d like to request you to take a look at Mission section of this FA – Apollo 8 which organizes technicalities into clear and free flowing prose.
 * I have rephrased it.
 * 1) "The smartphone considerably reduces its predecessor's sizes, measuring 4.3 by 2.4 by 6 inches (10.92, 6.09 and 15.24 centimeters, respectively)." ''' (the company reduces sizes?)
 * Reworded.
 * 1) "The model changes its predecessor's trackball to an optical trackpad,[24] with simple functionalities such as swiping the thumb to move it and press it to make a selection." (same as above)
 * Reworded.
 * 1) "This change eliminated potential frustrations for device users, including the accumulation of dust behind the trackball." (colourful vague words, I’d say, for a technical article.)
 * Reworded.
 * 1) "Similarly to previous BlackBerry models, BlackBerry 9700 has a 35-key QWERTY-type physical keyboard, which is smaller than that of Bold 9000.[23][25]." (Similar to?)
 * Reworded.
 * 1) "On the top of the device, there are two buttons that respectively lock or mute it; on the right side of it, rubberized keys are found, which can either control the audio volume or the music player; further down, there is a camera shutter key." (respectively – unnecessary. I like this sentence because its clear and flows freely. May be you can model the rest of the paragraph like this, I’d say.)
 * Removed.
 * 1) "For the Bold 9700, the system came with upgrades, specifically for Messaging, Calendar and Browser applications; support for BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) and BlackBerry Internet Service, the latter allowing having up to 10 personal or business-oriented POP3 or IMAP4 e-mail accounts registered." (Break it! The sentence loses flow after the semi colon.)
 * Separated sentences.
 * 1) "The software also comes with "personal information management tools" and pre-loaded applications, such as a calculator, a clock, a task list and Documents To Go; along with more downloads found in BlackBerry World (then BlackBerry App World), though extra applications can only be downloaded to the smartphone's main memory and not to the microSD memory card." (same as above. Too long.)
 * Separated.
 * 1) The Critical reception section should be rephrased because it has significant neutrality issues. I’d recommend you fine tune the wording a bit. I’d like to request you to refer the Reception in other FAs, mainly from Music category.
 * 2) Can you use more quotes from critics in the reception section to preserve neutrality? I’d recommend you tell the reader what critics said rather than taking a position yourself like "He commended … ", "Mokey favored … ", "He was less positive", etc.
 * 3) Avoid "awarded", "commended", "criticism", "favored", "", "less positive", "more mixed", "relatively dissapointed", "lack of originality", "preferred", "showed herself satisfied", "she was happy", "noting", "more negative"
 * 4) "Jamie Lendino and Sascha Segan from PC Magazine, who respectively reviewed the AT&T and T-Mobile versions, gave the smartphone a rating of four out of five points—the former favored the robust design, the display, voice quality and its long battery life; the latter also highlighted the form of the keyboard and Wi-Fi calling, while she was more negative about the browser and its lack of originality." (Break it! Make it clear, simple and easy to follow.)'''


 * Could you help me with the last four points? I don't know how to do what you've asked for as it will become a quote farm. Prism   △  15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry for the delay. I recently reviewed Mom & Me & Mom. Can you write Critical reception section on these lines? All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just did! Could you please check it? :) Prism   △  22:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, I liked the term "quote farm"  --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Prism, I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about my reviews which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time! -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)