Talk:Vcash/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial remarks

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)[reply]

Review

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)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a: prose, spelling, and grammar

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

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

Pass - references are fine.

2b: citations to reliable sources

Pass - only a few different sources cited, but they're fine for this topic.

2c: OR

Pass - pretty much everything is backed up with a source.

2d: copyvio and plagiarism

Pass - none found.

3a: major aspects

Pass - this is fine, it covers most aspects of the platform.

3b: focused

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)[reply]

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.

4: It follows the neutral point of view policy

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

Pass

6a: images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales

Fail - same as the first review. the logo probably isn't copyrighted.

Removed The storefront image with copyrighted logo in the body has removed.

I would've kept it - and copied the logo to commons with the copyright tag pd-logo.

6b: appropriate use with suitable captions

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Elliot321: Thanks for noticing the sentences that appears to be weasel word and had fixed the issue by adding examples of who is the mentioned merchants. The rest of it has been improved based on your recommendation. WPSamson (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WPSamson: thanks for the improvements again. I would still remove the info on the different account tiers - that's really not that relevant to the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliot321: The account tiers section was

Removed. WPSamson (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WPSamson: ok, I made some minor changes to the article and re-added the image - the logo is public domain - and the rest of the issues have been addressed. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]