Talk:ZenBook/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Review in progress. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Article would benefit from a copyedit; perhaps the nominator could find someone from the WP:GOCE to perform such an edit. Article also fails the Manual of Style on account of the lead section being too short, though both these points are easily rectifiable.

   Lead improved, I see.

   I have given it a bit of a copyedit myself (I found some dreadful language that I am embarrassed to have written) and requested at the GOCE for someone else to also do so. I will definitely go over it again but I'm pretty busy until late next week so it will be a few days before I get the chance. James086^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources, though I am yet to perform the requisite series of spot-checks.

   Spot-checks now done; mostly fine but could someone point out to me where in cites #7 or #16 "the shallow key-press of the metal keyboard" is referred to?

   Anandtech is to cite Asus running out of time, I removed Trusted Reviews and instead put the engadget review of the UX31A that says "That machine was one of our favorites in what was still a budding category, though we took issue with the shallow keyboard and uncomfortable touchpad." diff. I must have linked to the wrong citation. James086^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers all the major points with little superfluous material, albeit in a rather unexciting fashion; it would be good to draw out more of the common themes and hence pass over the actual chronology of models faster.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article includes both positives and negatives of the models described; and I have no great complaints with its tone throughout.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Under the utilitarian object doctrine, all images are not derivatives of the original designs, and, as such, are okay. The number of images is adequate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Under review. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

   Now on hold, pending copyedit. However, I would be prepared to pass it if no copyedit is forthcoming. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 00:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comprehensive review. I'll give it another copyedit, most likely next Wednesday or Thursday when I'll have time. James086^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

   Passed as a good article following my copyedit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, I'll take another look over for any other prose improvements I can spot. James086^Talk 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)