Talk:Cortana (virtual assistant)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   More wikilinks would improve things. Otherwise, the article is very well-written and clear.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • The section "Cortana in other services" has numerous problems:

   • Some of the material here is similar in character to "Expansion to other platforms" - consider whether the two sections can be merged. Much of the material here is related to development history.  Done
   • Consider citing "This differs from the Google mobile app, which by default presents all available browsers installed on the device, unless the user has opted one to always open." Removed  Done
   • "Cortana works with the Cortana Analytics Suite to enable businesses to get things done in more helpful, proactive, and natural ways" is heavily laden and uncited. I would just drop it.  Done
   • Avoid terms like "enable" and superlatives when discussing the function of a commercial product. It must not be our intention to endorse things.  Done

   • Avoid laden superlatives in "Technology"; "extensive" jumps out.  Done

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   • Quora is not a WP:RS: Karan, Rekhi (June 26, 2015). "What programming language(s) was/were used to program Microsoft's personal assistant Cortana?". Quora. Retrieved June 26, 2015. Removed, note added  Done
   • Some references are deadlinks, and have questionable claims of being WP:RS; see "Microsoft's Digital Assistant, Cortana, Is Now on Android, iOS; - GUC". www.googleusercontent.co.in. Retrieved 2016-07-25. Please recheck references (there is a link to a great tool for that on this page).  Done

   C. It contains no original research:

   • "On PCs and tablets running build 9926 or later, Cortana is accessed through the search button in the taskbar, while on smartphones Cortana is brought up using the search key on the device, and is very similar in design and functionality to its Windows Phone equivalent." needs a citation, and has a citation needed tag already.  Done
   • The section "Cortana in other services" needs substantial cleanup and is already tagged. Inter alia, there remains a citation needed tag.  Done
   • The section "Regions and languages" has several valid citation needed tags (and other cleanup tags).  Done
   • The section "Technology" requires a citation for its last sentence, which is already tagged.  Done

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   The sentence "The Cortana integration lets drivers make restaurant reservations on their windshield, or see their favorite locations thanks to a virtual map." is copied verbatim from theverge.com. The language is also somewhat loaded - I'm torn on the use of the term "concept" to describe a feature, but certainly "favorite" and "thanks" are unnecessary. This sentence should be rewritten.  Done, hope what I did is fine

   • Absolutely! I wonder if the following sentence can be updated? FalconK (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

   • I simply removed it. I could not find any references stating specifically that it is integrated, although it could be easily inferred. There were some passing mentions in guides which include Foursquare and Windows 10, but nothing that will satisft the guidelines. I believed that it was not that useful, so I removed the sentence in it's entirety. Hope that's fine by you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See above for examples of laden terms and superlatives; these introduce editorial bias.  Done hopefully

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   • File:Cortana Interesting Answer.png is tagged incorrectly, and should bear the screenshot of a Microsoft product non-free rationale out of an abundance of caution.  Done -- it was deleted by commons, but isn't really needed anyway

   • Actually, it meets the Commons CSD {{screenshot}} and so I'm going to go ahead and transwiki it to here where it is allowed. FalconK (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

   • It is not clear that File:WP Cortana China.png actually needs to be resized, but please resolve this quibble at the file page.  Done
   • Non-free use rationale is missing from File:Cortana.windows10.png, the trademarks File:Microsoft Cortana.svg and File:Microsoft Cortana logo.png, File:Cortana for Android.png (incomplete), and File:Cortana Interesting Answer.png  Done

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   It's not immediately clear that we need to include all three logos, but it's not especially problematic either.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   At its core, this is a good, informative article. Once all the above quibbles are resolved, as I am confident they can be, I'm happy to approve this nomination. It looks like it will be a bit of work, so I'll keep the nomination on hold for a couple weeks or so.

   • Wow, that was fast! All the qualms are gone! FalconK (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for finally starting a review! As for avoiding laden superlatives, do you have an example? Regarding the deadlinks, I found only one deadlink using the tool and removed it. Sorry for edit-conflicting. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, no trouble at all. I'm glad to see these move forward so quickly! The laden language and laden superlatives seem to be all gone now - the article doesn't proclaim Cortana the most advanced or anything like that. I'm re-running the link analyzer now, and maybe I can take a stab at a couple of these as long as it's essentially mechanical. FalconK (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• What tool are you using? I can't find anything using Checklinks. Also, thanks for helping out with the article itself, and not only the review. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm using checklinks. However, I find I have to actually visit all the ones that show up as redirects, because many companies (like Microsoft) have a bad habit of giving you a 302 to some landing page that gives 200, instead of giving an error. Ones that do that, I try to change to go to archive.org. In this case, all had a suitable archived copy. FalconK (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Final thing is about the files. I have no idea how to proceed with non-free files, since my uploads are always on Commons. I'll try asking around on IRC, but if you know anyone that has good knowledge of it, please ask him to help. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'd be the last outstanding thing. The only thing I know about it is that we should follow Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; I don't know anyone that might know more. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Commons blew away the one screenshot that was there, but I'm not entirely convinced it was necessary. Looking at it more, I think a specific rationale for the trademarks might not be required since they are public domain. So, that probably just leaves the busywork of filling in the rationale on the rest of them, no? FalconK (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Seems like INeverCry deleted it. Pinged them, incase they can help us. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• @DatGuy: Looks like this may be for future reference. If you have a file deleted at Commons that can be used under fair use here, you can ask the deleting Commons admin to temporarily undelete the file so you can transfer it, or you can ask for temporary undeletion at COM:UDEL. As regards how to do anything here, use the monkey-see monkey-do method. Find a GA or FA on the same kind of article you're working on, and copy what the authors of that article did. lNeverCry 20:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Falcon Kirtaran I believe the files are all done. Two of them are PD-textlogo, and therefore aren't non-free. I did the 'paperwork' for one, and WP Cortana China is fine as is. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good! I think the deleted one is definitely nonessential, and the justifications are great for the others (I replaced a couple N/As just now with the obvious justification). I think that was the last blocker! Good luck at FA. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)