Talk:Vcash/GA2
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Initial remarks[edit]
Note: this is my first GA review, so I might make some mistakes, but I've read the policies and will try my best. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Review[edit]
This is better than the state the article was reviewed at a few weeks ago. However, it's not currently in meeting with the criteria.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
1a: prose, spelling, and grammar[edit]
Hold - some grammar issues like
- "Its competitors were: GrabPay, Touch 'n Go eWallet and Axiata's Boost." in the lead (shouldn't use a colon, just smooth prose)
- Done
- "user registration and usage of this service was not limited only to Digi customers, but non-Digi customers could also use it." (clunky, redundant, also this appears twice)
- Done need to check again the modified wording if it's acceptable or not.
- "The Malaysian Ministry of Youth and Sports supported this e-wallet initiative by making vcash" could be condensed to something like "The Malaysian Ministry of Youth and Sports made vcash"
- Done
1b: MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists[edit]
Hold - content in the lead shouldn't be duplicated later in the article. Also, a short summary (one sentence or less) of the reason for the shutdown in the lead would be good.
- Done
2a: references[edit]
Pass - references are fine.
2b: citations to reliable sources[edit]
Pass - only a few different sources cited, but they're fine for this topic.
2c: OR[edit]
Pass - pretty much everything is backed up with a source.
2d: copyvio and plagiarism[edit]
Pass - none found.
3a: major aspects[edit]
Pass - this is fine, it covers most aspects of the platform.
3b: focused[edit]
Hold - still same issue as in the first review
- Question: Which section that the focus need to be modified or improved? Is it inside the "service" section that previous reviewer mentioned about it? I need better explanation about the improvements that need to be done. WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much, yeah - some details with sources are fine - particularly when compared to other similar apps, and mentioned in RS - but the account tier level info isn't very useful as a table on its own, given that it's not really clear what the information there is for or why it's helpful. If that makes sense.
- Done Added sentences to support the table for the account tier level.
- Pretty much, yeah - some details with sources are fine - particularly when compared to other similar apps, and mentioned in RS - but the account tier level info isn't very useful as a table on its own, given that it's not really clear what the information there is for or why it's helpful. If that makes sense.
- Question: Which section that the focus need to be modified or improved? Is it inside the "service" section that previous reviewer mentioned about it? I need better explanation about the improvements that need to be done. WPSamson (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
4: It follows the neutral point of view policy[edit]
Pass - this is fine now, though reception section is entirely positive, and given that the app failed, there could potentially be some negative stuff that could go there too.
5: It is stable[edit]
Pass
6a: images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales[edit]
Fail - same as the first review. the logo probably isn't copyrighted.
[edit]
Pass - though a fair-use image of the app's UX could help, this might not be possible to obtain due to its closure.
Final[edit]
While the article has improved since the first GA nomination, some of the issues are still unaddressed. I am holding this article - if the issues are addressed in seven days, I'll pass it. Please ping me here to get my attention quickly (though I will also check after seven days). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @WPSamson: I replied to you in the review in some of the places you left comments, to address them, Also generally, I noticed under Merchant response, "Some merchants who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively" - please don't write it like this, see MOS:WEASEL - sorry for not noticing this earlier, I guess a second read always helps. Other than that I like the improvements and this article is closer to GA than it was before, please keep it up! (seven days are reset from now, ofc) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)