GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vogon101 ( talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Overall article does not currently meet GA standard - the prose needs to be clearer, especially the lead section whilst the algorithms sections are in need of re-thinking. It is a good start with a lot of useful information and I encourage
WikiLinuz to continue and perhaps re-nominate in the future.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Overlinked in places (eg total order, binary tree, data structure). Prose is ok but clarity needs to be improved to meet standard. Use of "we" seems not to comply with WikiProject Computer Science MoS example Quicksort. Similarly algorithms expressed in simultaneously too much detail (see 3b) whilst still being unclear, with many not having discussion of time in the prose. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Standard compsci concepts, sourced sufficiently | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes, though perhaps expanding on the history beyond the infobox could improve | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article goes into excessive details - acts like a textbook, especially in Operations section I agree with Springnut's 3O that this section needs to be trimmed (if you'll pardon the pun) though not as much as suggested. Height can be removed, searching reworked, and more complex operations (eg. deletion) made clearer | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No opinion expressed | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Minor fight over inclusion of a source/resource in the talk page (last entry 14th Oct.) between MrOllie and User:WikiLinuz, more substantive discussions around contents of code, I think this probably stable by the GA criteria but not 100% sure | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Both images are tagged public domain from commons | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Relevant images with appropriate captions. Fig 2 could have more explanation/linking to the text (list is ordered 1-3) cases are (a-d)? Would improve with more images. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Article fails standard at the moment. I think it needs changes that would require more than the standard 7 days of being on-hold |
::@
Vogon101: The said changes were made. Please have a look and let me know if there are any remarks. I will nominate it for the GA once that's done. (Pinging you since you were interested in reviewing the article.) Thanks,
WikiLinuz🍁(
talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Any interested user is welcomed to give the GA review. WikiLinuz🍁( talk) 04:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)