Talk:ZenBook/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Review in progress. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Article would benefit from a copyedit; perhaps the nominator could find someone from the WP:GOCE to perform such an edit. Article also fails the Manual of Style on account of the lead section being too short, though both these points are easily rectifiable.
 * Lead improved, I see.
 * I have given it a bit of a copyedit myself (I found some dreadful language that I am embarrassed to have written) and requested at the GOCE for someone else to also do so. I will definitely go over it again but I'm pretty busy until late next week so it will be a few days before I get the chance. James086 Talk  14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources, though I am yet to perform the requisite series of spot-checks.
 * Spot-checks now done; mostly fine but could someone point out to me where in cites #7 or #16 "the shallow key-press of the metal keyboard" is referred to?
 * Anandtech is to cite Asus running out of time, I removed Trusted Reviews and instead put the engadget review of the UX31A that says "That machine was one of our favorites in what was still a budding category, though we took issue with the shallow keyboard and uncomfortable touchpad." diff. I must have linked to the wrong citation. James086 Talk  14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers all the major points with little superfluous material, albeit in a rather unexciting fashion; it would be good to draw out more of the common themes and hence pass over the actual chronology of models faster.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article includes both positives and negatives of the models described; and I have no great complaints with its tone throughout.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Under the utilitarian object doctrine, all images are not derivatives of the original designs, and, as such, are okay. The number of images is adequate.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Under review. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now on hold, pending copyedit. However, I would be prepared to pass it if no copyedit is forthcoming. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 00:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comprehensive review. I'll give it another copyedit, most likely next Wednesday or Thursday when I'll have time. James086 Talk  14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed as a good article following my copyedit. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take another look over for any other prose improvements I can spot. James086 Talk  14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take another look over for any other prose improvements I can spot. James086 Talk  14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)