Talk:COBOL/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to commence the review as soon as I can. Esquivalience ^t 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First review

Looks good; but ref. 5 really needs to be replaced with a better source (ref. 4 is not too bad).

• "In contrast with modern, succinct notation like y = x;, COBOL uses MOVE x TO y." - Should be something like: "COBOL uses more traditional notation [or "more English-like notation", whichever fits better] (in this case, MOVE x TO y)". And shouldn't it be "syntax" instead of "notation"?

• "A 1959 survey had found that in any data processing installation, the programming costs at least $800,000 and that translating programs to run on new hardware would cost $600,000." - correct grammar in underlined text (suggestions above). Also, the source says the cost is on average, so I think it should mention that the cost is on average.

• "In the early 1990s it was decided to add object-orientation in the next full revision of COBOL. - should be reworded.

 Done I've applied the changes you've suggested. Thanks for the comments! EdwardH (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll scour through sources to see if there's no OR, then, if there are no problems, promote. Esquivalience ^t 21:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

List for first review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See suggested improvements above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Find a more reliable source than ref. 5. Also, checking more sources to see if there is original research, but looks good so far.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The strong point of this article. Very comprehensive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Final review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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: