Talk:Surface Mini

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Surface Mini article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Surface Mini has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 7, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Surface Mini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I will be reviewing this article. Expect comments soon. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

No pictures. While it is encouraged, it is technically not required. I would see if its possible to acquire an image via WP:NFCC.
All references seem reliable.
Copyvio check came back clean

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:
· · ·

Discussion[edit]

While no images, the rest of the article meets the criteria for GA. I will be promoting it, although I do ask that you please try to acquire an image for this article. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]