Talk:DARPA Network Challenge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 09:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review. I will make notes as I go. Please indicate what has been fixed below the comments. I prefer comments and maybe the done template, rather than striking text out, as that makes the review more difficult to read at a later date. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References
 * Ref 6 is dead
 * Ref 12 redirects to somewhere else. url needs updating.
 * There are problems with 14 other urls. 7 connection timeouts, 4 server problems and 3 connection refused. Click the external links item on the toolbox above to see which ones. In particular, those to darpa.mil are problematic, but the website appears to have been archived to archive.darpa.mil for research purposes, and so this may be useful.


 * Specifics of the competition
 * Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are unreferenced. In particular, text such as The verification of balloon sightings was paramount to success. needs referencing, so we know it is not just your opinion.
 * the $40,000 challenge award should probably be a $40,000 challenge award, since it has not previously been mentioned.
 * 8-foot needs metric equivalent. Suggest using convert.
 * the official competition site increased in traffic doesn't read well. Needs rewording.
 * The final paragraph is a short single sentence. Suggest combining it with the previous one, or expanding.


 * Winning strategy
 * Paragraph 2 is unreferenced, and appears to be a direct quote. In view of the challenge, it may no longer be available online, but may be on the internet archive.
 * as these new people would not be become competitors needs fixing.
 * a large amount of participants. Suggest this should be a large number.


 * Second place strategy
 * Paragraphs 1 and 2 are uncited.
 * due to the lack of a structure that created much incentive as the winning MIT team's scheme. Doesn't quite make sense. Suggest as much incentive or somesuch.


 * Tenth-place strategy
 * Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are uncited.


 * Other strategies
 * Paragraphs 1 and 2 are largely uncited.
 * provided that they included details confirming about their submmission needs rewording.
 * Hotz only prepared for the competition for an hour before posting a tweet an hour before the start. Not very clear. Did he start 2 hours before the start, or are both hours the same?


 * Reflections
 * Paragraph 1 unsourced. We need to know that these are not your personal reflections.


 * Lead
 * I think this needs some attention. Quoting from WP:Lead, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lead currently contains much information which is not covered in the article. (Details of DAPRA, Congressional authorization, actual aims of the exercise, etc). I wonder if a solution might be to rename "Specifics of the competion" to "Competition details" or somesuch, and include most of the first para of the lead, and some details of the aims, perhaps linking it with the final single sentence about the 40th anniversary of the Internet. Then have another go at introducing and summarizing the content in the lead. What do you think?


 * Structure
 * The detailed analysis of the first-, second- and tenth-placed strategies leaves me wondering why you chose these, and not the fifth or sixth, for instance. It needs a short summary to explain why these strategies have been explored but the others have not.

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I'll wait until some of the ref problems are fixed, before checking that the sources are used appropriately. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No attempt has been made by the nominator to address any of the issues raised. I have corresponded with the Carnegie Mellon course tutor, who confirmed that the course is finished, and that while some students have continued editing, others have not. If you want to re-nominate this article, please ensure that the issues raised in this review are addressed before doing so. I am failing it for now. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)