Talk:BitLocker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm afraid that it falls short at the moment. See comments below

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only one image used, has an appropriate Fair Use licence

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose

• "included with select editions of Windows Vista and later in January 2007" Meaning is unclear here. I think you mean "included with Windows Vista in January 2007 and select editions of later editions" ?
  • Fixed by deleting "select" and "in January 2007". "included with Windows Vista and later" should be enough. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Microsoft eDrive is a specification for storage devices to allow compliant storage devices to use its built-in encryption" Meaning is unclear; by "its" is BitLocker or eDrive being referred to?
  • Fixed by a full rewording and update. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• "encrypting other volumes could be achieved through an included command-line tool" Nice to have a link to "command line tool", but what was the name of the tool?
  • Fixed by a rewording. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS

• "core edition of Windows 8.1 include device encryption" No need for bold text here, per MOS:BOLD
  • Endorsed by MOS. MOS:BOLD endorses boldface for the following case: 'To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (e.g. sub-topics of the article's topic, rather than the synonyms as already boldfaced per the above)' In this case, device encryption redirects there. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

    You're quite right. I am astonished though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Three dot point paragraphs in "Encryption modes" need references (probably 23)
  • As of Revision 754399865, the source for these bullet points is #25. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Last point in "Encryption modes" needs a reference
  • Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th paragraphs in "Operation" section require references
  • * Laste remaining action item. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• 3rd and 4th paragraphs in "Security concerns" section require references
  • Done —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• 21 doesn't go to the right place
  • Fixed. The source was revived using Web Archive. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• 42 is broken
  • Fixed. The source was revived using Web Archive. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Second external link is broken
  • Nothing to fix. Must have been a momentary server down time. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Placing on hold. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'll look at this in the next few days. Thanks for the review! FalconK (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)'

  @Falcon Kirtaran and Codename Lisa: Still one bit remaining. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  I read you loud and clear, Hawkeye7. If everything goes according to plan, I can handle it on Sunday. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7:. It is done. —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)