Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Seems like an interesting topic. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "It represented an effort to simplify the computer to its barest essentials, while remaining easy to access the interior." is hard to understand, especially within context. "The New York Times Peter H. Lewis" should have some punctuation. Note: I fixed both of these issues.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article had some minor grammatical issues, but I fixed them and passed the article. Overall, this is a pretty good article, with good images - necessary for describing such a product - and lengthy but topical prose giving a good understanding of the topic. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article had some minor grammatical issues, but I fixed them and passed the article. Overall, this is a pretty good article, with good images - necessary for describing such a product - and lengthy but topical prose giving a good understanding of the topic. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article had some minor grammatical issues, but I fixed them and passed the article. Overall, this is a pretty good article, with good images - necessary for describing such a product - and lengthy but topical prose giving a good understanding of the topic. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)