Talk:Code42/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 13:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello! I'll have a look at this one, it's been sitting here for a while... Review will follow over the weekend or, if not, early next week. Take care, Moswento ^talky 13:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Moswento! The folks at GAN had commented that they support GAs on smaller articles, so long as it covers "the major aspects", which is great because I like to use GAs to get a second pair of eyes on my COI works. Should be an easy review given how small it is. I notice there are some copyediting issues and other problems. I'll do some fixing right now. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done copyediting done. CorporateM (Talk) 14:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall

• Overall, this is a great article, and one of the smoothest reviews I've ever done. The prose is very clean, the sources are reliable and used suitably without close paraphrasing, the article is neutral, with the Reception section appropriately reflecting the reviews. I just have a few minor questions or queries - once these are addressed, I would be delighted to promote this to GA. Take care, Moswento ^talky 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your replies. It is with great pleasure that I am promoting this to GA. Keep up the good work! Moswento ^talky 08:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

History

• There are 5 co-founders listed in the infobox. Why only 3 here?

 Done

• "a project for Target" - this is an optional change, but it might be clearer for non-US readers to specify "a project for the retailer Target" (or similar wording indicating who Target are)

 Done

Business

• "100 petabytes" - worth wikilinking petabytes? Will still be unfamiliar to a lot of readers

 Done

• "It had 4,500 business users" - I couldn't see this in the footnoted source? Either way, the source is from 2011 so if it is there, this needs to be clarified.

I can't find it in that source either. A lot of the sources got mixed up in a sloppy article-merge from a now-banned user. I'll dig up the source again.CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been checking all the sources and did a search in Google News Archives, but couldn't find anything to support it. Not sure where it came from, so I went ahead and took it out.

Crash Plan

• The only significant thing that's missing here is the mobile device support. You mention the acquisition of Recursive further up, so I would expect a few words here about what this support entails.

I'll see what I can find. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I used primary sources for it, but they should be adequate for the fact that the mobile apps exist. CorporateM (Talk) 13:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• "a 4.5 out of 5" - "a rating of 4.5 out of 5"?

 Done

• "The free consumer version does not allow users to recognize mapped drives on Windows" - I honestly do not know what this means, or why it would be an advantage to be able to do this! Is there a way of explaining this more clearly?

I re-wrote it slightly and wiki-linked to Drive mapping, as it would be a lot to explain here. Apparently, it's when a remote drive on the network is setup to act as if it was a local drive on the PC. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• "an unofficial workaround." - in what sense is this an "unofficial" workaround, if it's provided by the Crash Plan support website?

 Done

Sources

• Footnote 18 is missing a publisher. Strictly speaking not essential for GA, but would be nice :)

 Done