Talk:IOS 10/GA1

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

Reviewer: ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Copyright violation
Paragraph copy-pasted from TechCrunch, see report here. Review put on hold.  Programming Geek talk to me 20:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The section that you say is a copyvio seems to be a statement from Apple and it also appears in a Mac Rumors article []. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with KAP03. That's a statement, which has also been posted to multiple other media outlets. It is clearly defined by the media as a quote, and I believed the blockquote formatting and "in full, the statement read" here on Wikipedia were good indicators of an actual quote. Normal facts should be rewritten, but I don't think actual statements should be... LocalNet (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that ProgrammingGeek is a totally inexperienced reviewer and should not be doing reviews without having some previous mentoring; neither should they be doing a review of Amazon.com. I already expressed concerns on the WP:GA talk page relating to another article. This article has already been put "on hold" before a review has even taken place. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing this message here I appreciate that you're letting us know. Is there anything I/we should do, or does this situation need to be resolved by someone else? Let me know :) LocalNet (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The content in question is set out in quote form and is acknowledged as being the full quote. In my opinion the inclusion of this content does not constitute a copyright violation. Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)