Talk:Windows 8.1/GA2

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

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that for this article, which is less than 5000 words, the lead should be no more than two paragraphs. Consider moving the material about reception of 8.1 and the channel distribution requirements to appropriate sections in the article body.  Other MOS aspects are met. My mistake.  It calls for 2-3 paragraphs for articles between 15000 and 30000 characters, which this falls in, so it complies with the MoS.  The lead is actually pretty well done, and my procedural quibble was clearly in error.  FalconK (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Once the lead paragraphs are condensed to comply with MoS guidelines, this article can graduate to GA status. This is a great article and tells me everything I might need to know when trying to read up on the development of this OS or Microsoft's thinking and strategy around it. FalconK (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (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:
 * Once the lead paragraphs are condensed to comply with MoS guidelines, this article can graduate to GA status. This is a great article and tells me everything I might need to know when trying to read up on the development of this OS or Microsoft's thinking and strategy around it. FalconK (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Once the lead paragraphs are condensed to comply with MoS guidelines, this article can graduate to GA status. This is a great article and tells me everything I might need to know when trying to read up on the development of this OS or Microsoft's thinking and strategy around it. FalconK (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)