Talk:The Open Definition/GA1

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

Nominator: 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonna take a stab at this. Sohom ( talk ) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * and it has become something of a standard.
 * I think discussing Gartner's alternative would be DUE here.
 * Done
 * Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in. Why?
 * Expanded
 * Made some small CE edits
 * Source review is pending
 * Looking at the Martin 2022 source, it might make more sense to talk in brief (maybe just one line) about David Wiley's interpretation of the open-content as well as Bruce Peren's definition (again a single line) since those seem relevant to the content at hand.
 * Done
 * Sourcing seems to check out
 * MOS tends to prefer that there are no citations in the lede, with the lede being mostly a summary of content in the article.
 * It is, but former names are expected to be included in the lead and direct quotations have to be cited even if they summarize the body.
 * The rest seems great, thanks for working on this article. :) Sohom ( talk ) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)