Talk:Write amplification/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 24, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is pretty good throughout, however, would strongly suggest going for a peer review post-GA, where input could be solicited from copyeditors and users previously uninvolved with the article.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Good use of secondary sources, on a difficult and esoteric subject matter.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers main aspects, however, going forward towards peer review and upwards in quality in the future, would recommend expanding subsections: Impact on performance, Product statements, and perhaps add in some additional analysis and commentary from secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here. Presented in a neutral manner.

5. Article stability? Passes here. No major conflicts or issues, upon inspection of article edit history, and article talk page history.

6. Images?: I moved some images from being hosted locally, to instead be at Wikimedia Commons. These check out as appropriate.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, thanks for the review, updates, and promotion of the article. When I get a chance I will take it through additional peer review as recommended. Thanks. § Music Sorter § (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]