Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments[edit]

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 5.7% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews. References for improving the article are listed on the talk page so I'll look at which have been implemented in the article.
  • There are four references left on the talk page that could be possibly added to the article. This is, of course, optional, so it is not a requirement in order for this article to be promoted to GA status.

General comments[edit]

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt texts to the images in the article.
    •  Done.
  • FYI, you can remove the single citation from the lede. I doubt that it is something that is likely to be challenged by someone and the information is already mentioned in the body. Lede meets the rest of the WP:LEAD guideline.
    •  Done.
  • Howard Gardner and theory of multiple intelligences are wikilinked twice in the body. The second mention in the "Development and release" section could be unlinked.
    •  Done.
  • The article also complies with the MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a ((reflist)) template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Most of the references are reliable, however:
    • Per WP:RSPYT:

      Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK.

      The refs in this case come from unverified and anonymous channels, therefore the refs should be removed and replaced with a reliable source (if there is one that backs that sentence up).
      • That's a tougher one, since the staff confirmed the ending was changed for that reason when asked about it and one of the two citations is the original cut, but since I couldn't find it listed in a better source, I pulled the sentence.
    • You can add the URL to the instruction manual: Internet Archive.
      •  Done.
    • Ref 7 and 39 do not have pages listed.
      •  Done.
  • Spotchecked Ref 2, 4, 7, 13, 21, 25, 32, 40–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • I do not see Bill Ding being mentioned in Ref 7 and 10.
      •  Done.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topic. The only thing I still do not get is why is Jenkins' death mentioned in the article.
    • Yeah, me either. Removed.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments[edit]

@Cyberlink420: The article will be put on hold for a week so that you can fix these issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got everything, but if I missed something, please let me know! -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed so I'll promote the article to GA status. Good job. Vacant0 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]