Talk:Joomla/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most of the sources are primary links to Joomla's website, consisting of mainly release statements and forum posts. Very few third-party sources are used.	Fail
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article mostly focuses on the product itself and community, but not its reception among the larger public.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No daily changes. Passed	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images are properly tagged	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The Joomla code, community, culture image seems to be rather insignificant and is more fit for a marketing presentation.	Fail

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Fail	Sorry, but the sources situation is unacceptable. I have to quickfail this article. I would recommend taking some time to research coverage of Joomla in reliable sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a good place to start.

Discussion[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]