Talk:The Open Definition/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Sohom (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Buidhe paid (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a stab at this. Sohom (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it has become ~~something~~ of a standard.
I think discussing Gartner's alternative would be DUE here.
- Done
Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in. Why?
- Expanded
Made some small CE edits
Source review is pending
Looking at the Martin 2022 source, it might make more sense to talk in brief (maybe just one line) about David Wiley's interpretation of the open-content as well as Bruce Peren's definition (again a single line) since those seem relevant to the content at hand.
- Done
Sourcing seems to check out
MOS tends to prefer that there are no citations in the lede, with the lede being mostly a summary of content in the article.
- It is, but former names are expected to be included in the lead and direct quotations have to be cited even if they summarize the body.

The rest seems great, thanks for working on this article. :) Sohom (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.