Talk:Citizen's Briefing Book/GA1

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More than a little daunted to be reviewing a GAR nominated by Cirt, who I'd generally assume to have a more informed position on Wikipedia matters than me, but I'm going to be as thorough as I can anyway and hopefully learn something from the process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 :
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article is well written in clear, concise prose, featuring correct spelling and grammar. The following suggestions for improvement are not necessary for passing GA:
 * Lead - "The Minnesota-based company called" - This would read better as "A Minnesota-based company called".
 * Lead - "using technology from Salesforce.com" - "Salesforce.com" is not wikilinked or explained, and the name format would suggest a website. It's not immediately clear therefore whether this is a website, a company, or both.  Perhaps "technology from the company Salesforce.com" or something similar?
 * Comment process - "The web function was developed for" - Should this be "web functionality"?
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article complies with Manual of Style for lead sections.
 * The article complies with the Manual of Style for layout. (Comment - I would generally suggest it's undesirable to have a level 2 heading supported by only a single paragraph ("Release") but this may be inevitable given the current size of the article.)
 * The article complies with the Manual of Style for words to watch.
 * The Manual of Styles for list incorporation and fiction do not apply to this article.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * All references appear in a dedicated and appropriately labelled section.
 * (b) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * All statements and quotes requiring citation are sourced to reliable sources through inline citations.
 * (c) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article does not appear to contain original research.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article appears to cover all relevant areas of the topic. (I'm left feeling like I want to know more about this topic, but given that it was only 33 pages long and the response was fairly small in scope this may really be as much as can be said.)
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article does not go into unnecessary detail.

.
 * The article appears to present all relevant viewpoints in a neutral manner.

.
 * The article does not appea to be the subject of rapid changes or ongoing disputes.

: 
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * All images and media have appropriate tags and licensing information.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * All images and media are relevant to the article and appropriately captioned. The following comments do NOT need to be addressed to pass GA:
 * File:The_President_Introduces_the_Office_of_Public_Engagement.ogv has an unfortunate screencapture as its representative image. Is it possible to massage this so as to get a screencap where the President doesn't look like he's about to sneeze or spit?
 * File:Citizen's_Briefing_Book_cover.jpg stands out poorly from a white background (or at least it does on my browser). Is it possible to get a version with a black border or something else to help it pop out in the infobox?



Overview - Well, despite my best efforts to find something to start an educational argument about, it appears the article meets all the GA criteria. I will therefore pass it. Congratulations on a Good Article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)