Talk:AVG PC TuneUp/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:TuneUp Utilities/GA1)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by FleetCommand in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
An interesting piece of software, but the article goes into far too much detail in some areas and not enough in others. Furthermore, the prose is not very easy to follow.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- The lead section should summarize the entire article; in its current state, it just says what the software is, without including anything as to its critical reception and why such a piece of software might be notable. Also, the features section is a large amalgamation of text that would do much better in some type of embedded list (note I do not mean regressing to the list format the article was in before, but merely providing more separation between the software versions). I should also mention that the Notes section directly beneath the table of operating system support violates WP:LAYOUT.
- Will be fixed, no problem. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:LAYOUT compliance, check!- Lead section, check!
- Article overview section, check! We have embedded list as you advised. Fleet Command (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will be fixed, no problem. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The lead section should summarize the entire article; in its current state, it just says what the software is, without including anything as to its critical reception and why such a piece of software might be notable. Also, the features section is a large amalgamation of text that would do much better in some type of embedded list (note I do not mean regressing to the list format the article was in before, but merely providing more separation between the software versions). I should also mention that the Notes section directly beneath the table of operating system support violates WP:LAYOUT.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- There are way too many inline citations for this article (at some points there is even a citation for what languages the software it is released in). This really has nothing to do with its promotion to GA status, but should be noted and probably fixed as it becomes annoying to the reader.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The software features section is way too long and unnecessarily detailed, to the point where it becomes confusing and hard to follow for the reader. The features section should provide a brief overview of the current features of the software, and only bother to mention previous versions if it is in some way necessary to do so. Currently you summarize the product features chronologically, but I personally suggest, though don't feel obligated, to sort them by feature and maybe mention as is done in OptiY (though I think the separate section headers would not be necessary here), especially considering it is feature section and not a product history section. See WP:DETAIL for more advice on this.
- Agreed. Will fix that. But I will need your input on this too. I'll call you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Overhaul of the aforementioned section, check! Fleet Command (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Will fix that. But I will need your input on this too. I'll call you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The software features section is way too long and unnecessarily detailed, to the point where it becomes confusing and hard to follow for the reader. The features section should provide a brief overview of the current features of the software, and only bother to mention previous versions if it is in some way necessary to do so. Currently you summarize the product features chronologically, but I personally suggest, though don't feel obligated, to sort them by feature and maybe mention as is done in OptiY (though I think the separate section headers would not be necessary here), especially considering it is feature section and not a product history section. See WP:DETAIL for more advice on this.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article is mostly neutral, but I have found that there is not much mention of the disadvantages of the program, other than references to price and lack of features. One of the reviews already sourced in the article talks about how some features are "superficially implemented", yet there is no mention of this. Furthermore, a quick search found an entire review dedicated to describing how this software has become worse and worse with each upgrade. I'm not saying the software is bad and should be represented as something not to be purchased, but the current description of its critical reception is not entirely neutral.
- That small part in computershopper.com will be added. Tranglos.com fails to meet WP:RS requirements and hence is not a reliable source. Personal blogs all fall within WP:SPS unless published by a notable person. Since I am not a notable person too, my own blog post that criticizes TuneUp Utilities also does not qualify. Otherwise, I don't see why you should not give a pass mark to this section. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Computershopper.com statement, check. Fleet Command (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- That small part in computershopper.com will be added. Tranglos.com fails to meet WP:RS requirements and hence is not a reliable source. Personal blogs all fall within WP:SPS unless published by a notable person. Since I am not a notable person too, my own blog post that criticizes TuneUp Utilities also does not qualify. Otherwise, I don't see why you should not give a pass mark to this section. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is mostly neutral, but I have found that there is not much mention of the disadvantages of the program, other than references to price and lack of features. One of the reviews already sourced in the article talks about how some features are "superficially implemented", yet there is no mention of this. Furthermore, a quick search found an entire review dedicated to describing how this software has become worse and worse with each upgrade. I'm not saying the software is bad and should be represented as something not to be purchased, but the current description of its critical reception is not entirely neutral.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- The two program screenshots have a fair use rationale, but they are in no way low enough resolution for such rationale to be valid.
- I'll see to it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reduced File:TuneUp Utilities 2011 - Start Center.png
- File:TuneUp Utilities 2011 in list view mode.png is not going to be reduced. It is chiefly made up of text which is not eligible for copyright protection. Fleet Command (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see to it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The two program screenshots have a fair use rationale, but they are in no way low enough resolution for such rationale to be valid.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article has a lot of shortcoming, primarily the unnecessary detail in the product overview section, but once these problems are fixed it should be ready for promotion.
- Pass/Fail:
(Just put my comment down here so you don't go searching for it :) ) With those problems fixed I could see this article easily becoming GA, if not higher. And now that I look back I see the unreliability of the tranglos.com link I provided. My inherent strictness in article quality tends to get the best of me sometimes so I was probably just looking for a reason not to pass on that section. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)