Talk:Forcepoint/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment: – hello, and thank you for nominating this article. I will be starting this review very soon. Please bare with me, as it may take some time to complete the review. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Overview
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The prose looks good, and is clear. I found no spelling or grammar errors.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- So far, the article does not currently comply with the manual of style guidelines as GA criteria states. The lead section does not accurately summarize the key information about the joint venue. MOS:LEAD states
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
This article is large enough, and sourced enough, to contain more information that should be summarized in the lead. Currently, the lead talks too much about the company renaming and its acquisition, and should focus on a brief overall history of the company, and more about what the company does and its influence. If this can be fixed before the end of the review, I will pass this criteria. However, it fails to meet this GA criteria right now. I would recommend that the Websense and Forcepoint sections be renamed to 1994–2014 and 2014–present, respectively. I also recommend that censorship become its own section.
- So far, the article does not currently comply with the manual of style guidelines as GA criteria states. The lead section does not accurately summarize the key information about the joint venue. MOS:LEAD states
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- Citations do not follow MOS:REF. Especially in the § Websense section, citations are cluttered, with multiple citations spread across a single sentence (ex.
Websense was founded in 1994[3] by Phil Trubey[4] during the dot-com boom[5] under the name NetPartners.[6]
) This is not necessary and does not follow the layout style guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoiding clutter, WP:MINREF and WP:CITEDENSE.
- Citations do not follow MOS:REF. Especially in the § Websense section, citations are cluttered, with multiple citations spread across a single sentence (ex.
- 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:
- All citations reference a reliable source.
- C. It contains no original research:
- No original research – information uses inline citations that reference reliable, independent sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No copyright or plagiarism violations.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Much of the article does address main aspects and is on scope, however, the § Products is vague when it comes to the name, description, use and influence of the product, which should be improved to have the article include main aspects. This should be improved before passing.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- The article does stay focused on the subject, and does not go into unnecessary detail. It has summarized information about the subject that complies with summary style. Pass.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Yes, the article does represent viewpoints fairly. No issue here.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars. Relatively stable.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- Trademarked logo has appropriate licensing tags.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
This article will be placed on hold until the above failed criteria is addressed and fixed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. The failed criteria should be fixed or addressed within 7 days(or a different amount of time, depending on how busy the nominator is and if they request more time)or this article will fail. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 15:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has failed because it has not met the criteria set by GAN. Nominator did not fix pending issues. Feel free to fix issues and nominate again in the future. CookieMonster755✉ 20:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]See above