Talk:Monster Cable/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article. It's late where I am (22:10), so I'll pick up on it tomorrow.  Sports guy 17  (talk • contribs • sign) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Pass!  Sports guy 17  (talk • contribs • sign) 00:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good so far, but lead needs some work. The first paragraph immediately jumps in to what it manufactures. CorporateM, mind adding context and a general overview before jumping into its manufacturing. Otherwise, this article is looking good.  Sports guy 17  (talk • contribs • sign) 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sportsguy. Thanks for taking on another one of my GA nominations! Giving the article a fresh pair of eyes, I noticed a few things that often come up in my GA reviews:
 * The Lead is probably too long and could be cut to just 2 paragraphs
 * The early history sounds a bit promotional, but may be neutral if it is representative of the sources
 * I have a habit of lumping everything into History and a lot of GA reviewers end up having me move a lot of the product history to Products, like "It also introduced its second audio cable, Interlink"
 * North 8000 pointed out that some of the new divisions that were created need an explanation of what they are
 * The Controversies section seems out-of-step with WP:Criticism
 * CorporateM (Talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the GAN on hold so CorporateM or anyone else has the opportunity to make the necessary changes. First of all, give more introduction to the lead, condense the lead, check the neutrality, make sure everything is appropriately divided into sections, such as "Products", "Company History", or whatever the topic may be. Also, remove any controversies that contradict WP:CRITICISM. Otherwise, the article is looking good.  Sports guy 17  (talk • contribs • sign) 02:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What the heck? Someone wants to jump a "START" article to "GA" status without first going through "C" or "B"?  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you're referring to a rating by one of the projects that is interested in the article?   That is neither a requirement nor it is it a norm to require it.  North8000 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. It doesn't really matter, since some ratings are very outdated. These days, people care more about whether an article is GA material as compared to C-class material.  Sports guy 17  (talk • contribs • sign) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sportsguy17. It seems some of the issues I raised were unimportant and the others have been addressed, but it's always a good thing to get a second opinion on a few things. Let me know how you would to proceed with the GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)