Talk:GNU General Public License/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 02:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

Wow, this is quite a long article! Looks good to start with, but the first thing I do notice is perhaps a bit of citation overkill in the second paragraph. -- numbermaniac (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made a number of changes to the wording in several places. Grammar has needed editing in some places.
   • What is the purpose of the italics in "ASP loophole in the GPL", under History/Version 3? Is that intentional, or a mistake?
   • I'm not 100% sure about the usage of parts such as "For more information, see <article>" since I don't see that much elsewhere on the wiki, but I'll leave those as they are for now.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   • References 109, 149 and 163 are dead links. Please check the Wayback Machine and other archiving websites to see if they can be found. I checked the Wayback Machine for link 109 and most of them seem to return a 404 Not Found.
     • If you can't find any, let me know. Since full citations were used instead of bare URLs, they are still considered verifiable.
     • (163 is now fixed, thanks bot!)
   • On the other hand, I think there's a bit of citation overkill going on in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Please fix that.
   • I notice a citation needed tag in the Copyleft section, and I've also included one of my own in the Derivations section. Please provide citations for those statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The article is quite large, however there is a lot covered in this article, especially considering all the legal issues around such a popular license.
   • Under the section "Open-source criticism", a summary should be included of the "Labyrinth of Software Freedom" analysis if possible. Currently, the article doesn't say anything about what this analysis states.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • I do like the idea of the "Point of view" section, describing and extending the different points of view on the linking issue.
   • Quite a lot of negative opinions are presented, but perhaps not as many positives. However, both sides of opinions are still shown, so this shouldn't be a problem.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please fix the issues mentioned above (italics, citation issues, and the summary of that analysis). Overall, this is pretty good.

It's been two months and the issues haven't been address, or even acknowledged here. As such I'm closing this. Wizardman 15:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)