Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cortana/1

Cortana

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Cortana/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist the lead is inadequate and some of the sourcing is questionable. The biggest (hardest to easily fix) issue is the lack of a reception section. This fails the broadness criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this article meets the good article criteria. Some sections and paragraphs are only a single sentence long, the article contains some vaguely promotional content (like the "by the numbers" section), the article cites sources which don't seem to be reliable or particularly reputable (KontentPort, Eye on Windows, Ubergizmo, etc.), and even the lead is a bit too short for my liking. This article feels more like a C class to me, not a GA. I've never brought an article to reassessment before, so apologies if I've done something wrong. TheAwesome Hwyh  16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the purposes of a GAR is to see if an article can be fixed to return it to GA status. In this case, comparing the article to the Oct. 8, 2016 version that was declared a GA, I seem some added material in the current version, but not too many deletions. So I guess the first thing to do is to figure out is if your criticisms come from a degraded article, and potentially fixable without too much effort, or if you would assign 'C' status to the original GA article. If the latter, that is a bigger problem. Could you take a took at the 2016 version? Thanks, -- 18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think that that version also fell short of being a GA; it the same problems with sourcing in that version too, and I forgot to mention that there's barely any mention of the reception Cortana received in either versions of the article, thought a Engadgenet reviewer's impression is oddly included in the "Cortana in other services" section. Prose is mediocre in both versions of the article, too. So, I would also say that version was a C. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look and clarifying the issues. So it seems as if there would be no quick fixes here. It is too much for me to take on at present. We'll see what others think. -- 21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)