GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Initial remarks edit
Note: this is my first GA review, so I might make some mistakes, but I've read the policies and will try my best. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Review edit
This is better than the state the article was reviewed at a few weeks ago. However, it's not currently in meeting with the criteria.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
1a: prose, spelling, and grammar edit
Hold - some grammar issues like
- "Its competitors were: GrabPay, Touch 'n Go eWallet and Axiata's Boost." in the lead (shouldn't use a colon, just smooth prose)
- Done
- "user registration and usage of this service was not limited only to Digi customers, but non-Digi customers could also use it." (clunky, redundant, also this appears twice)
- Done need to check again the modified wording if it's acceptable or not.
- "The Malaysian Ministry of Youth and Sports supported this e-wallet initiative by making vcash" could be condensed to something like "The Malaysian Ministry of Youth and Sports made vcash"
- Done
1b: MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists edit
Hold - content in the lead shouldn't be duplicated later in the article. Also, a short summary (one sentence or less) of the reason for the shutdown in the lead would be good.
- Done
2a: references edit
Pass - references are fine.
2b: citations to reliable sources edit
Pass - only a few different sources cited, but they're fine for this topic.
2c: OR edit
Pass - pretty much everything is backed up with a source.
2d: copyvio and plagiarism edit
Pass - none found.
3a: major aspects edit
Pass - this is fine, it covers most aspects of the platform.
3b: focused edit
Hold - still same issue as in the first review
- Question: Which section that the focus need to be modified or improved? Is it inside the "service" section that previous reviewer mentioned about it? I need better explanation about the improvements that need to be done. WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much, yeah - some details with sources are fine - particularly when compared to other similar apps, and mentioned in RS - but the account tier level info isn't very useful as a table on its own, given that it's not really clear what the information there is for or why it's helpful. If that makes sense.
- Done Added sentences to support the table for the account tier level.
- Pretty much, yeah - some details with sources are fine - particularly when compared to other similar apps, and mentioned in RS - but the account tier level info isn't very useful as a table on its own, given that it's not really clear what the information there is for or why it's helpful. If that makes sense.
- Question: Which section that the focus need to be modified or improved? Is it inside the "service" section that previous reviewer mentioned about it? I need better explanation about the improvements that need to be done. WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
4: It follows the neutral point of view policy edit
Pass - this is fine now, though reception section is entirely positive, and given that the app failed, there could potentially be some negative stuff that could go there too.
5: It is stable edit
Pass
6a: images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales edit
Fail - same as the first review. the logo probably isn't copyrighted.
edit
Pass - though a fair-use image of the app's UX could help, this might not be possible to obtain due to its closure.
Final edit
While the article has improved since the first GA nomination, some of the issues are still unaddressed. I am holding this article - if the issues are addressed in seven days, I'll pass it. Please ping me here to get my attention quickly (though I will also check after seven days). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @WPSamson: I replied to you in the review in some of the places you left comments, to address them, Also generally, I noticed under Merchant response, "Some merchants who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively" - please don't write it like this, see MOS:WEASEL - sorry for not noticing this earlier, I guess a second read always helps. Other than that I like the improvements and this article is closer to GA than it was before, please keep it up! (seven days are reset from now, ofc) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)