Talk:Cello (web browser)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * The article needs a thorough copyedit. I went through a few sections and cleaned it up, but there is still a lot more that needs work (beyond the point where I would still be a neutral party reviewing the article).


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * I am concerned about the use of lists in the features section. Many of the features, including supported protocols, etc., would better be shown in prose. Some of the features also warrant discussion: How widely used was Gopher+ at the time? How did it handle "mailto" without a standardized email client interface on the OS? How was it extensible? All of these would be able to be addressed if the features were in prose instead of a raw list.

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * Very well referenced


 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * In-line citations are appropriate


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No evidence of original research

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * I am concerned with some of the topics not being discussed. Why did development cease? How did it compare to other (non-free) browsers at the time? The criticism section is really just a list rather than a discussion of the criticisms that were received; how were these criticisms responded to? These are the types of things that a reader might want to know upon coming here. I don't disagree that this is quite a historical browser; for this very reason, it is critical that this information be supplied in the article.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * OK

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Both criticisms and claims to fame are addressed, well balanced.

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Stable

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Images are non-free, but have valid rationales and are appropriate for the article


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Images are relevant, but I think the splash screen may be overkill. That's open to debate, though.

General comments
This article can be great. In particular, the fact that there are so many references available makes the potential of this article very high (I feel it can hit featured article some day). Unfortunately, today is not that day. The article needs a copyedit, but first it can benefit from significant expansion in some area. It needs discussion of the features and criticisms as well as commentary on impact on the community. Yes, it was a big deal for lawyers, that was addressed well (though it could probably use its own section). What about other domains? These are the kinds of things an editor reading a quality article will want to see. With those concerns addressed I think this will be a clear candidate for a good article.

Overall
Based off the concerns above, I feel there is too much work to be done to warrant placing this article on hold right now, so I will have to fail it. However, I will be more than happy to review this article again when the above concerns are addressed, whether it takes a day, a month, or a year. I really want to see this become a good article, but it just needs some more work still.

Lead section
I'm not too good with rewriting technical articles...but I've attempted a lead section rewrite as follows:

I'm not sure if its any better than the current lead...thanks for the review btw=D.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)