Talk:Xgrid/GA2

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

I'm not sure how this wasn't brought up before, but this article lacks independent reliable sourcing
 * MacNN mention is trivial.
 * 5/13 references, including three of six referenced more than once, are from Apple itself.
 * Nothing seems to indicate to me that http://unu.novajo.ca/simple/ is a reliable source.
 * Gulker article looks RS'ed, but per his bio I'm not sure he's independent. Call it one independent RS, though.
 * Stanford links are interesting, but not a reliable source.
 * Dylan Muir posting is just a technical hint, not non-trivial coverage.

Apologies, but this is just inadequate sourcing for a GA. Feel free to renominate with some better press coverage--consider using a service like Nexis, ProQuest, or EBSCOHost. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, per our discussion, I've stepped out of the reviewer role and made substantial edits to the article in support of the reliable sourcing. Thus, a new reviewer is necessary. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

New Review
Hi! I'll take over the GA review of the article, if no-one minds. I'm reading through the article right now, and doing a quick copy-edit, so I should have my comments up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is generally meant to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it should have no original information in it (information that is not also found in the body of the article) and so, doesn't need sources unless they are backing up a direct quotation.
 * In the first paragraph of the History section, you say "Zilla was the first desktop-based distributed computing program". Now, I think I understand what you mean here, but the way it's presented is a little awkward.  Please try to reword this.
 * Do you have any external links? If not, this section can be removed.
 * I understand Jclemens concerns about independent sources, but I think that as the article stands now, it should be OK. With the additional references added by Jclemens, the references are at least slightly more diverse.  Also, since you're using Apple sources mainly to cite information on how the programs works and was developed, they are most likely going to be a reliable source. However, if you are planning on taking this article to FA review, please know that you will most likely be challenged on the rather Apple-heaviness of your references.
 * I agree with Jclemens comment below that the fair-use image rationales for the two screen-shots should probably be more in depth. I would suggest taking a look at some other rationales (for example, check out the fair use rationales for the images in Movieland.)

Overall, this is a very nice article. There are just a few things that I would like to see changed before I pass this article to GA status. Jclemens, I would also appreciate any input you have on this review. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if either of you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice work! I'm passing this article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)