Talk:Microsoft Product Activation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is not bad where it exists, but a few places in the article consist of lists and tables. An effort should be made to use prose to describe these instead. If that's not practical, then at least write some prose to motivate their inclusion. For example, the "Usage" section consists of tables only. A general reader needs some text description at the beginning to know what is in the tables and why they should look there. The first section should be called "Activation process" instead of just "Process" to make it more description. The same principle should be applied to other sections, so that when a general reader looks at the table of contents, they have a better idea of what is contained in each section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Far too much of the article relies on non-independent primary sources, from the Microsoft Corporation itself. I understand the inclusion of these sources, but I think to bring this to GA status, you'll need independent references for some of the activation process and basic information.
 * Also, some of the references do not support what is being claimed. For example, in the lead it says, "The procedure enforces compliance with the program's end-user license agreement by transmitting information about both the product key used to install the program and the user's computer hardware to Microsoft, inhibiting or completely preventing the use of the program until the validity of its license is confirmed." Some of this is supported by the cited reference, but it doesn't discuss how the procedure inhibits or prevents use...at least not in that type of language. This is the kind of thing eluded to above - Microsoft Corp words things in "corporate euphemisms" in their documentation. This is why I think you should get refs independent of Microsoft to verify reliability of claims.
 * It appears that all the references were typed from scratch without using a citation template. That's fine, but it has appeared to result in some formatting errors. For example, ref #27 bleeds into the adjacent column - on my screen, at least.
 * I HIGHLY recommend that you find archived versions of the webpages to put into the citations, using, for example. When I used the "external links" tool (above, right), several pages had errors. Click on that to see the report.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article is not broad enough for GA status yet. Microsoft has been extensively covered by historians and journalists for decades, so I would expect this topic to have been discussed. I'm thinking mainly of the background and history of the activation process. A general reader will come to this article wanting to know why Microsoft invented and implemented this process. Was it in response to, or in anticipation of, economic losses? Were there specific cases involved? How has the process changed over time? Discuss more about the geographical limitations eluded to in the table. While the article doesn't have to be completely comprehensive for GA status, background and history are a minimum for basic broadness.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Mostly NPOV, except for the extensive use of MS Corp documentation to reference article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars. Looks good.
 * 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):
 * Images have fair use rationales - you do need to indicate in the summary of each image that the MS Corp owns the copyright. Both images need to have alt-text.
 * 1) Overall: This is a reasonably good start to the subject, and mainly requires some expansion of history and background, and inclusion of additional sources independent of MS Corp to bring it up to GA status. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days for improvements to be made. If improvements aren't made, the article can be renominated at a later date.
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
On the file description page of each image, the licensing template makes it clear that Microsoft owns the copyright. Both images now have alternate text (just the caption rewritten in the alt attribute). --— Michael Kourlastalk – contribs 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also add that I'll be away for the next few days, and so this GA might end up being closed without any significant improvements. Once I have time, I'll fix the problems, then re-nominate for GA. --— Michael Kourlastalk – contribs 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind keeping it open longer, if you are reasonably sure you'll return to it. However, I don't want to keep it open longer than a couple weeks. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been eleven days without any updates...what is the status of the article? Will improvements be made in the next few days? AstroCog (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something rather serious has come up. I won't be able to edit for a while. You may as well close the GA - I will improve the article when I can and renominate when the above concerns are addressed. --— Michael Kourlastalk – contribs 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Take care, and good luck with the article in the future. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)