Talk:CobraNet/GA2

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

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominated GA. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial sweep

 * Note: Article has had a bit of a hard time with keeping vendor links out of tables. Not held against nomination.
 * Comment - All links within the tables are wikilinks, not external links. The only external link in the article was for the Whirlwind E-Beam Laser.  I have removed that link and created a reference in its place.  As that was the only external link in the article, I have removed the external links cleanup tag.    talk 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 1

 * "capactity" spelled incorrectly (i think it was section 4, if you can't find use find function in your web browser.
 * Fixed.   talk 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 2

 * Citations 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13 are dead links.
 * Links fixed. (Note that citation numbers aren't the same because I have added new citations to the article.)    talk 03:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation 7 & 11, it needs to be more specific to page numbers.
 * Added a page number for citation 11. As for citation 7 (which is used multiple times throughout the article), I'm not sure if you're asking me to break this reference into a bunch of separate references (which would be somewhat impractical and cumbersome), or to provide a page range from which all of the references are derived.  I have added a page range (of 20 pages) from which all of the references are derived.    talk 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I was looking for. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation 14 does not link anywhere (in article, useless)
 * This citation was for one of the manufacturers listed in a table. For some reason, when you click on the ^ link next to the citation, it doesn't scroll the window up, probably because it is inside of a table.  In any case, I have deleted this citation (and the material it referenced) for a completely different reason.  The product it referenced has not yet been released (WP:CRYSTAL), and the reference was improperly formatted.  In short, problem solved.     talk 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 3

 * Each Point in section 2 (except one) does not have any source, therefore is to be assumed as Original Research.
 * A lot of OR issues, tagged in article.
 * NPOV issues with a quite a few OR tag's, primarily the example business products.
 * I believe I have fixed all of the OR and NPOV issues that you have tagged in the article. For most of the issues, I added one or more citations to back up the statement.  For a few of the issues, the statement had to be either reworded or deleted if it could not be cited.  The number of references in the article has nearly doubled since your initial review.    talk 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Checks out here. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 5

 * NPOV not maintained in example in last sentence of section 3.
 * I'm not sure exactly which sentence you're talking about. I may have fixed this as part of the other work on OR and NPOV issues that I described above.  Please take a look and let me know if there is still an issue.     talk 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It disappeared in your editing somewhere, don't worry about it, it is gone. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Final Call
Accepted GA Status. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more comment to fixing up the article, This may just be me, but I do not like people changing the not done/done statuses on me, it helps me keep track of what I have fixed. --MWOAP (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)