Talk:LG Mobile World Cup/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * The article could use an independent copy edit. In general it is good, but I feel there are some wordy sections that can be confusing to the reader. The last sentence in the section "Records" in particular took me a few times to understand exactly what was being talked about.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * The lead section presents some material which is not present in the article itself. This should generally be avoided. The lead section should be, in essence, a summary. In fact, a related matter is that the "Format" section immediately jumps into what happens during the competition instead of providing context to the reader. That section should address what the competition is (and perhaps the section should be renamed). This would provide the missing content which is referenced in the lead, "in which participants competed using their texting speed and accuracy". Furthermore, by adding this content to the "Format" section, the references can be moved from the lead to the content sections. In general, the lead should either be fully referenced or not referenced at all (it's ok, and not a bad idea, to have an unreferenced lead section so long as all of the content in the lead is addressed again and referenced appropriately in the summary &endash; again, the lead is intended to be a summary, so there should be no new content anyway).

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
 * OK


 * (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
 * I would like to see a reference for the "thirteen countries" fact, which is stated twice but neither time is given a reference. The reference should be provided when it is discussed in the "format" section.
 * ✅ NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No original research detected

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * I think the results could be presented better. The reader is left with the following questions:
 * What was the characters per second of other participants?
 * How did the results compare to past competitions?
 * How did other countries compare beyond the top three? How close were the second and third place to first?
 * How did accuracy play into the competition? Only speeds are discussed in the article, except in the lead where a comment about accuracy is made.


 * Is this really all there is to say about the competition? Were there any controversies? What about related competitions? Is this the first of its kind on a global scale? If so, how did it compare to expectations? Were there any critical reviews or opinions of the competition? These are all kinds of questions that could add significant content to the article. Honestly, size is not a valid metric for GA, but it's just a gut feeling that some of this content can exist but is missing. Feel free to say "no it doesn't exist" though. I'm just trying to point out things which might be issues.


 * I'll look into it. (expectations, critical reviews). I haven't been able to find any.  I did however find what phones they used, and a couple other pieces of information I'll use.  And it is the first international competition for texting: I'll add that. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Good

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * In general, it is OK. I am worried about the section "Format" which lists the 13 countries but the order seems to unfairly treat the United States by placing them first. Is there a particular reason for this order of countries? I would prefer either the official ordering or alphabetical order to treat all countries equally.
 * ✅ NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stable

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

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Valid fair use claim; non-free image is low resolution.


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Appropriate and captioned correctly. Missing alt text. This is not a GA concern, but it will be a concern if this is brought to WP:FAC
 * ✅ anyways. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

General comments
Honestly, I think this GA nomination was a bit premature, but it's a decent article. I'm totally willing to work with it during the review to get it to pass, but it will need a little work first. In particular, I think some commentary is missing on reviews of the competition, whether or not it will continue in the future, how it compared to past competitions, etc. The above sections go into this in a bit more detail. Beyond the content issue, nothing stands out at me as a major blocker.

Overall
while the above concerns are addressed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After doing some research, I am satisfied that this covers the main topics, despite its length. As length is not a requirement for GA status, I am willing to pass this as a GA. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)