Talk:.xxx/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.

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.	The case of the TLD should be consistent within article (exlcuding quotes and citations). As the major change in article's structure is required (see note 1b3), prose was not checked.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article suffers from overlinking. Eg., the reason for linking word "international" in organization's name in the lead is unclear. The Wikinews link points to the nonexistent page. The layout of the article is at least questionable: the Background section mixes the history with reception, the name of ICANN / ICM doesn't summarize the content. The external links seems to present the material that should be covered in the article.
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.
	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).	In-line citations should follow the single style (in this case WP:CS1 per majority of citations). The works should be properly attributed; wikilinking of works should be consistent. The date format should also be consistent: the most common is YYYY-MM-DD, though MDY entries (including "NOvemberr 16,2011") also occur. The article overly relies on a primary source (ICANN). If possible, secondary sources should be provided. References #4-5, though may be seen as WP:NEWSBLOG, still would be better replaced by more reliable sources. Reference #6 should be better replaced with some less questionable source. Reference #7 is WP:SPS. Reference #18 is a Youtube video, which is not a reliable source. It still can be used with a lay summary from reliable source, indicating the authenticity of the video.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The first paragraph of the Background section
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	I don't think that the logo in the infobox indeed doesn't meet the threshold of originality.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown.

These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.