Talk:Nexus 7 (2012)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hmm. Technology. Bear in mind my personal heroes include Tyler Durden and Crates of Thebes.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * " it is emphasized as an entertainment device with deep integration with Google Play" -> "it is emphasized as an entertainment device featuring integration with Google Play" (keep "deep" if you wish, I found it clunky).✅ Done ", serving as a platform for multimedia consumption " -> this is really Dilbert-esque in its phrasing. Upshift this paradigms. Try "supporting access to e-books, television programs..." I just want to emphasize the the N7 is a multimedia device. "he device features a 7-inch (180 mm) screen" -> what's the other dimension? 7" tall is nice but width is worth noting here. I believe convert handles ratios and multiple measurements so it should be simple enough to just insert the width to produce "7-inch by X-inch (180 mm by Y mm)" ✅ Clarified "then Google chief executive officer" -> you'll need a hyphen after "then", and I think "CEO" is one of those well-established acronyms that's generally understood more readily than the term it abbreviates, so consider going with it to lessen the mouthful you have there (qualifying who Schmidt is isn't the crux of that sentence but it is a lot of its length).✅ Done "the designer of the popular iPad." -> stick "tablet" in there after iPad; it's a well-known device now but I always worry about recentism when electronics are concerned.✅ Done "and that "Our engineers told me it is like torture"" -> You can drop the capital O here (no need to square-bracket it either, it's an acceptable change).✅ Done "and its inclusion of a camera and NFC functionality" -> you explain later what NFC is; move that up to here instead as this is the first post-lead mention of the concept.  I think it's more appropriate if the function is explained under "Features", and that the purpose of the sentence above is to demonstrate why the tablet is slightly more expensive than the Kindle Fire. "customers buy into an application ecosystem when purchasing tablets" -> given that the link in "application ecosystem" leads to a larger title, it might be worth noting that "ecosystem" is a term used in the source there, even just by putting it in quotes.✅ Done "TV programs" -> "television programs".✅ Done "The tablet's display is protected by a layer of Corning Fit Glass." -> "Corning" is a disambiguation page.✅ Done In the "see also" links, remove the Nook and Fire, these are already linked in the article.✅ Done
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Ref 3 has a publishing date (June 27, 2012) that could be added; might be worth taking a look at the other web sources without publishing dates to be sure that they aren't available. Other than that it seems okay to me; I could argue for the inclusion of links to things like Wired where applicable but at present the lack of links is as least consistent so it's not important if your preference is not to include them.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Hmm. I'm not too savvy when it comes to tech articles but the recentness of this one seems like it might hinder its completeness in terms of reception. It looks good for now, definitely enough to cover the GA criteria, but if you want to go further with this then definitely keep an eye out in case there are long-term problems yet to be discovered, etc.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Seems fine.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Busy enough, but uncontroversial.
 * 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images seem fine. They're all used well. I'm wondering if a case could be made that the logo is just original enough to count as copyrightable but it's not really my area of expertise. Leave it as is though.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Not a lot wrong here really, just some prose concerns to be seen to as listed above. On hold for seven days for you to address them. GRAPPLE   X  23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes work for me. Good to go. Well done! GRAPPLE   X  23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Images seem fine. They're all used well. I'm wondering if a case could be made that the logo is just original enough to count as copyrightable but it's not really my area of expertise. Leave it as is though.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Not a lot wrong here really, just some prose concerns to be seen to as listed above. On hold for seven days for you to address them. GRAPPLE   X  23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes work for me. Good to go. Well done! GRAPPLE   X  23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)