Talk:Chompi/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Suntooooth (talk · contribs) 23:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Theepicosity (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This is a wonderful small article! I love Chompi and I am very glad that there exists a good Wikipedia article for it :D

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written! I would recommend fluffing out the lead a bit more, so that people can get a better idea of what it is just by reading it. It's unfortunate that there isn't more information on this thing, but you can still fluff out the lead by describing how the thing itself looks how it works ("The lower buttons can play one of 25 different samples, and the upper knobs can control various different filters and effects.") and how it is different from other samplers. ("It is designed to be accessible and screenless, operating instead by using LEDs and labels to show the status of the effects.") Of course, I'm not an expert on Chompi, so you might want to write this with correct knowledge of how the machine actually works ;p

   Just looked at the updated lead, it looks WAY better! I like how the kickstarter is mentioned in the lead, that detail feels quite important and I like that it is included.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (inline citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   (source spot-check done):

   References are quite populated, although some of them do seem a little bit questionable. I really enjoy the interview sources, but I don't like the blog-y ones as much, especially the ones which talk about the specs. I would ask that the author of the article do their own spot-check on the sources, just to make sure that everything is indeed alright ;p Also, the note about Mixdown Magazine is odd, why not just cite an archived version of the original Kickstarter instead of an incorrect figure?

   Looks like the Kickstarter is now included as a source, good work!

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

   Pretty good coverage! Good enough for a good article atleast; it would be nice if there was something about the mascot or what the heck "chompi club" means, but it's not necessary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It would be really nice if there was a link to the website, as well as a picture of the creators and *especially* an audio recording of what the Chompi sounds like!! Alas, none of these are required in order to be a good article... you get a pass for now!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Check the two noted sections in this review, once the main author gets back to me, I will consider it passing!

   Good job on the article, it is now passing!

Thanks for the review! Great to see another Chompi fan in the wild :D

• I've expanded the lead - let me know if it needs any more work.
• I personally think the sources are fine, but then again I wrote the article, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to judge them. To explain the note about Mixdown Magazine: Kickstarter links are generally blacklisted for spam, so when I wrote the article the Kickstarter page wasn't allowed as a reference. I later got the campaign page whitelisted for use in the article, but didn't think of replacing that note with it. It's fixed now!
• I could upload one of my own audio recordings at some point, but it's not a priority; same with the note about the mascot and Chompi Club. There's a link to the official website in the external links section. As for images, unfortunately the picture I took of Chompi is the only freely-available image I can find, and I don't think a fair use rationale would stand for the article considering there's already an image of Chompi itself.

Let me know if I've missed anything! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Theepicosity: Just checking in, since it's been a week since this has been active and I believe I've fixed the issues you mentioned in your review. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I was out for the past few days and for some reason I didn't get a notification that you had replied. I will update the review soon! Theepicosity (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)