Talk:Windows Vista editions/GA1

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

Reviewer: Flowing dreams (talk · contribs) 08:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I tried to fix minor infractions, but there are things that require more time and energy. For example, please pay attention to the following example:"such as support for HDTV and DVD authoring and DVD burning, and Windows Media Center with support for Extenders and the Xbox 360."Please notice how many "and"s are in this sentence. It is awkward. In addition "DVD authoring" is the same thing as "DVD burning". The former is more professional while the latter is more colloquial. It is also unclear what is the meaning of "Partial" in front of "Windows Movie Maker" in the table. How exactly was Windows Movie Maker partially available? There is also a feeling that the person or people involved in writing article were German speakers, but that is not a failing criterion.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * There was one that I fixed: Among the Windows Vista Business edition capabilities, "and other business-oriented management features" was listed. This is an instance of employing weasel words. However, the "Notes" subsection of the "Editions for personal computers" section contains a list miscellaneous items that should be merged with the rest of the article.
 * 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:
 * Uses Citation Style 1
 * 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:
 * Two of the publications used as sources are no longer considered ipso facto reliable, but they have been so at the time. So, moving on.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Tagged one statement as needing references.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * There are minor instance of verbatim copying but it is not much.
 * 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:
 * I am resolving the final issue myself and setting the review as "Pass".
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am resolving the final issue myself and setting the review as "Pass".
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am resolving the final issue myself and setting the review as "Pass".

flowing dreams (talk page) 08:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC) Final update:  flowing dreams  ( talk page ) 08:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Addressing your comments
"I tried to fix minor infractions, but there are things that require more time and energy. For example, please pay attention to the following example: [...] There is also a feeling that the person or people involved in writing article were German speakers, but that is not a failing criterion."
 * I have since updated the article and have corrected the examples you cited. I also edited Windows Movie Maker in the table to indicate the manner in which it is restricted. I do hope that your comment about German speakers applied at least to myself. Please do let me know. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

"However, the 'Notes' subsection of the 'Editions for personal computers' section contains a list miscellaneous items that should be merged with the rest of the article."
 * I do not believe that I changed this, but I intend to do so later in the week. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

"Tagged one statement as needing references."
 * Please refer to my revision where the text has since been updated. I retained your "citation needed", however, as I am not sure how you will assess the new text. Thank you for your assistance and for your time. I apologize if this was not the correct way to address your comments; however, it seemed confusing to leave my comments directly under those of the reviewer. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC))
 * Reviewer was a sock, struck through their comments. Doug Weller  talk 10:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)