Talk:Qapital/GA2

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

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this. Overall it looks good, no dead links or any copyvio. This is a short article, so expect me to continue, and maybe finish, tomorrow. Jerry (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, busy week, you'll see comments tomorrow.Jerry (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm back to finish the review. As said before, there are only a few nitpicks.


 * "for providing a low interest rate," should be " for providing a low-interest rate,"
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Reference 6's "Retrieved May 13, 2016." should be "Retrieved 2016-05-13."
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "It operates on the IFTTT (if this then that) principle." Wait, IFTTT is a web service, right? So does it use the service, or does it use it's methods? A bit unclear to me.
 * I am not entirely sure about this. In my first read of the source I thought IFTTT was simply an acronym for "if this then that" and didn't realize it was an actual software program. A closer read with this new context makes me wonder if Qapital is "a savings account version of IFTTT" or if it operates "with IFTTT." In any case, I'm not sure this technical detail is really that significant and the source is very weak (only used for basic description of how the product works), so I just trimmed it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See above.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 2a is mostly met except for point above. 2b is met and the article is quite neutral for a paid editor. 2c is also met.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is a bit short, but all major areas are covered so that's expected.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Uses a neutral tone throughout article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Can't find any problems, is quite stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Fair use rationale has been given for the 2nd image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for reviewing ! I have provided responses inset above and made corresponding fixes. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I'm passing this article. I don't see any problems with this now.