Talk:Delimiter/GA2

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

Reviewer: (klat) kirihS 03:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Seems to be grammatically valid and clear


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * The section layout was a bit awkward, but I corrected that on my own. I also removed some unnecessary quotation marks. Beyond that I see no MOS concerns. Jargon is well explained.

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
 * 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
 * Well referenced


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * There are a few sections that contain code samples. Preferably we would find a code sample that we can reference instead of a code sample developed by the editors here, but this is something that could go either way.

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * I'm worried there are components of this article that can be significantly expanded to fully cover the topic. For example, the article only briefly touches the surface of field & record delimiters and bracket delimiters. A missing topic is a discussion of when to use one type or the other. What benefits does on pose over the other. Also, the topic of the XKCD comic is interesting and should be discussed in more detail. The article already discusses SQL injection as a possible detrimental effect from parameter collision, but doesn't really discuss the potential implications of this or how the issue is solved. Yes, escape characters are an option, but what about parameterization?


 * The article does manage to scrape most of teh aspects of the topic, but it doesn't seem to address them. The prose in the article should be fleshed out. Currently, I feel the article only raises the issue instead of discussing and detailing it.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Despite the fact that I said in section (a) that there is insufficient detail, there may be too many examples of delimiters, actually. This can be distracting to the reader. The table in "bracket delimiters" is very good, however the example style shown in section "escape sequence" can be distracting with little added benefit. Simply discussing how this is done may be preferable, perhaps with a sidebar on the right with an example, rather than two full-width examples. There is no need to write an entire perl statement for such a discussion when a simple string literal (which would be compatible with many languages, actually) would suffice.

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Honestly, I don't think there are any viewpoints to be biased about here.

Stable

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

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Only image is free


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * relevant and captioned

General comments
I think this article still needs a little work. It could benefit from expansion of sections, especially those that are almost list-like currently. Instead of discussing the topics, the article currently only brushes up against key points. Some sections are good, but some could use significant elaboration. Until the sections are fully discussed, I can't pass this article for a GA.

Overall
Unfortunately, I must fail this article per the above concerns. --(klat) kirihS 04:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)