Jump to content

Talk:Android Debug Bridge/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusalkii (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 30 November 2021 (Enablement, general, sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a first time reviewer, so I intend to ask for a second opinion once the review is complete.

Initial thoughts: the article seems sparse for a GA. No illustrations but the one in the infobox, at this size I would want one or two more; perhaps an image of ADB in use? Architecture section is two sentences and should be significantly expanded or merged elsewhere, preferably expanded. Rusalkii (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Copyvio: Earwig gives 6.5% similarity, with a couple sentences in the security section resembling this source. Could be rewritten but seems okay. Rusalkii (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias or promotional tone. Security issues given reasonable weight.
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Recent history since August split from Android software development#Android Debug Bridge (ADB) has been almost entirely steady improvements by nominator PhotographyEdits, with a single incident of minor vandalism. Rusalkii (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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):
    Own work screenshot and public domain logo. Could do with more images, but I couldn't find any in commons or appropriately licences after a quick search. Rusalkii (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Comments

Lead

Features

History

Enablement

Security

  • I added a paragraph to divide RageAgainstTheCage and the unnamed next vulnerability. It's unclear if the new second paragraph describes one vulnerability or several. Clarify and/or split into paragraphs. Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Some important topics that seem to be missing
    • Who made ADB? Who's developing it? It's mentioned in the infobox and the implication in Google made it possible, but this deserves some content in the article, ideally both in the lead and the history section. Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How and what is it used for? I see sources talking about both debugging, as implied by the title, and modding. The article also mentions malware removal in the security section, but I'm not sure it belongs there- that seems to be about security issues with ADB, not vice versa. 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

  • All nontrivial statements are cited, no sources in lead. Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look generally okay. I'm not thrilled about the number of how to articles but none of them seem individually objectionable. Rusalkii (talk)
  • Spotcheck that claims match sources:
    • 7 (Macworld) does not say that the 2007 release was a beta version.
    • 8 (Android Police) looks good.
    • 9 (Softpedia) looks good.
    • 18 (packages.debian.org) looks good.
    • 20 (Tech Republic) looks good.
    • 24 (Ars Technica) looks good.
    • 25 (ZDNet) is perhaps too closely paraphrased but otherwise good.