Talk:Arduino/GA1
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
On a quick read, the text of the article looks in pretty good shape. An Earwig check found significant overlaps with https://www.slideshare.net/NamanGautam2/home-automation-system-58772695 (probably an instance of someone else copying us, so not likely to indicate an actual problem) and with https://www.wired.com/2017/04/arduinos-new-ceo-federico-musto-may-fabricated-academic-record/ (we quote from the Wired article and properly mark our text as being a quote, so also not a problem). Otherwise there is no issue with copying.
However, the referencing and reference quality is far from ready for Good Article review. Many references (e.g. all footnotes numbered 33–53) appear to be unreliable (sourced to the Arduino project itself or to blogs) and many sentences and some entire paragraphs have no sources. There is one valid citation-needed tag dating from 2015 that has not been fixed before the nomination, indicating that the editors did not even proofread the article carefully and fix all tagged problems before making this nomination.
So I think this meets the "Immediate failures" criterion of Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Once all content has been properly sourced to published references, and checked against what those references say, it can be nominated again. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Open sourse
- "Arduino is an open source computer hardware and software company, project, and user community that designs and manufactures single-board microcontrollers and microcontroller kits for building digital devices and interactive objects that can sense and control objects in the physical and digital world."
- OK, is "Arduino" the name of the stuff that's open-source-able, or the name of a company? The company has to be seen as separate, because even though it can do open-source-able things, it isn't itself open source, or obligated to only be involved in open-source projects? -Inowen (nlfte) 06:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)