Talk:Scene7/GA1

GA Review

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

Per your request, I'll be reviewing this article! At first I was going to tell you that I'd get around to it sometime this weekend, but then I looked and saw that it was such as nice little piece that I decided I'd take a swing at it immediately :) I'll have the full review up in a bit... Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Company section, you say "enable customers to zoom in on details from the front to the back". I'm not sure what is being said here. Do you mean that they can view the product from all sides?
   • Same section, you say "The Harrods department store signed an agreement with Scene7 on June 24, 2005, for it to run its imaging and catalog system for the store's website." I don't really like "for it to run", but I'm not sure how you would reword it...
   • Same section, in the last paragraph you have "On August 4, 2008, Scene7 implemented Isilon Systems' clustered storage technology to run the company's computers and allow Scene7 to pay only for the resources that it uses. As a result, rather than buy the servers and only use a small percentage of their resources, the company essentially rents them." I would move this up to the end of the first paragraph, where you are talking about how the company runs. It's slightly confusing stuck in where it is, because you're talking about what companies use Scene7's services, then jump to what companies' services Scene7 uses, then abruptly jump back to companies that Scene7 provides services for. It would make more sense to me to have all of the information on how Scene7 runs its business together in the first paragraph, rather than scattered through the section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Is there no image suitable for the lead? :(

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few comments on prose, and one question about images, so I am putting this article on hold. Also, just as a comment, I think it's considered nice to either have a peer review or a GA review running, rather than both at the same time. Makes for a lesser possibility of conflicting advice :) Let me know if you have any questions on my review. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think I've got everything. I closed the PR; I planned on getting a GA review after PR, so I just didn't close it soon enough. I have an image for the lead, but {{Infobox Company}} doesn't support images besides the logo, unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good. It's too bad about the infobox, but w/e, thanks for explaining it to me :) I'm going to pass the article now. Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)