Talk:GrapheneOS

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Spiral6800 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

My initial commentary before meaningful review is that this article is not written in summary style, instead consisting largely of proseline. This is a significant problem for GA criterion 3b. I think it's fixable, so I won't quickfail barring other issues, but I just want to point this out. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm going to have to fail this review. Each of the issues would be fixable individually, but between the criterion 2a, 2b, and 3b issues, this is a ways from meeting the GA criteria. For practical advice, I think the most prudent steps to get the article GA are to apply summary style to the sections and to take it to WP:GOCE for a copy-editing pass. This will naturally make the proseline disappear, reduce the dependence on primary sources by eliminating minute details that need to be cited to primary sources, and reduce the amount of primary citations to fleeting events and social media debates. Also see WP:RECEPTION for advice on copyediting reception sections. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

References

As of this revision.

Spotcheck

• [7] - Does the source support instead of the default Android behavior of randomizing the address per Wi-Fi network? As far as I can tell, it just says Android has its own MAC randomization feature.
• [15] - Fine in body, but by the time this makes it to the lead we're reprinting a self-reported loose estimate of a large userbase, which I would consider an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim requiring better sourcing, in wikivoice
• [17] - Does the source support along with features including push notifications (Firebase Cloud Messaging) and in-app payments?
• [22] - Fine.
• [29] - Fine.
• [36] - GrapheneOS is a biased source on the question of if Apple was inspired by their features.
• [38] - Vanadium enables JIT-less WebAssembly support through the DrumBrake interpreter - Source does not mention Vanadium, so I don't think it can support that Vanadium uses DrumBrake.
• [53] - Fine.
• [65] - Fine.
• [71] - I'm not sure promoted is an accurate summary, as the source says Why Jack Dorsey tweeted a link to the open-sourced, non-profit GrapheneOS is unclear
• [77] - Fine.
• [87] - Fine.
• [92] - Fine.

Reliable sources

There are several problems.

• Low-quality or unreliable sources:
  • Android Police is a low-caliber WP:VALNET source
  • ZDNet is considered generally unreliable after its acquisition by Red Ventures (WP:RSPSS)
  • Blogs of companies with no known editorial oversight: Nitrokey, Synacktiv, Cape
  • kuketz-blog, which appears to be a self-published blog
• Primary sources
  • What I would describe as an overcredulous belief in GrapheneOS claims on their sites and social media. WP:ABOUTSELF carves out many claims, but not self-serving or exceptional ones, which I would categorize many as.
  • Many primary sources not from GrapheneOS, whether it be primary documentation on software, social media comments, or articles mostly reprinting social media comments. While WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, I think the Features and Hardware Compatibility sections fall afoul of "be cautious about basing large passages on them" (from WP:PRIMARY).

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.