Talk:Perl/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ankit Maity 08:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also

Why did you change this item from a pass to a question mark? You wrote below that there is some issue with layout, but the sections appear to be ordered according to WP:LAYOUT. Feezo (Talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I thought that it needs some improvements on images and lists to make it compact. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 11:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (more pictures neeeded)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: (NO)

Just a note, only three of the nine programming language GAs have more than one image apiece, and several of them have no images. I've added File:Camelia.svg to illustrate the Perl 6 section. Unfortunately the site containing the license text is currently unavailable. I'm looking for an alternative place that gives the license. If we can't find an official record of the license, I believe we can still use it under fair use. Feezo (Talk) 23:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Found the license and updated File:Camelia.svg to reflect it. I've also uploaded and added File:Onion 64x64.png. There are now three images, all with a valid license or fair use rationale. Feezo (Talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo,

I got the license name:{CC BY-NC-ND 3.0}. It was on the Perl organization website. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? File:Camelia.svg uses Artistic License 2.0, and the other two are fair use. Feezo (Talk) 09:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're talking about File:Pl-perl.png, which claims to be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, that appears to be a copyright violation since the image came from http://w3techs.com/diagram/history_technology/pl-perl and I can find no such license grant on that website. Feezo (Talk) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feezo, read the user terms of use of the website:

User-provided Content

With regard to content you make available in any publicly accessible areas of this web site, you hereby grant Q-Success the worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, translate, display, create derivative works from, and publish such content on or in connection with W3Techs.com or other sites. It is your responsibility to ensure that content you make available is meant for public display, which excludes adult or mature content and links to sites with adult or mature content. It is also your responsibility to ensure that content you make available does not violate copyrights held by third parties, and that making that content available on the web does not violate any local, national or international law. You acknowledge that Q-Success in its sole discretion may choose not to display any content you make available or to remove content you make available from its servers without notice.

Hope you understand. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:UNDECIDED, ON HOLD TILL 1 WEEK

Please add some pictures to make the article illusrated. There is only 1 picture in the whole article that also the logo. Please add some more pictures that covers the statistics, usage, advantage, disadvantage, etc. of the software. Thanks. Hoping to get reply from you soon.--Ankit Maity 08:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I created a (I'll go ahead and say it, but-ugly) timeline, in lieu of the quest for more pictures. For your horror, use, and remixing, I present:

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SORRY, PICTURE TOO BIG. and see my new review that the MoS[only layout] should be improved. Thanks.--Ankit Maity 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC).