Talk:Leafpad/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Vacant0 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this one. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Aoidh: On hold until these issues get fixed. Vacant0 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vacant0: Thank you for doing this GA review. I have addressed all of the points below. Typos have been fixed, the lede expanded and alt text added to the infobox images, a reception section added, duplicate refs combined. I replaced the Lubuntu refs with one that does support the wording, and removed Peppermint OS outright, since I couldn't find anything specifically discussing Leafpad in relation to that distro. - Aoidh (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks good now, I'll promote this to GA. Vacant0 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

General

edit
  • Further changes to the infobox are not needed.
  • Features: "and is similar..." → "It is similar..."
  • Usage: typo in "installations"
  • Another paragraph in the lede that would cover other parts of the "Features" and "Usage" sections is recommended, per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Optional, if it exists: Is there a reception for this text editor?

Images

edit
  • Add alt text.

Sources

edit
  • Ref 15 is the duplicate of Ref 10, it should be removed.
  • "Leafpad was the default graphical text editor for Lubuntu up to version 18.04 LTS. After Lubuntu moved from the LXDE to the LXQt desktop, Leafpad was replaced by FeatherPad." → Ref 26, 27, and 28 do not mention Lubuntu nor 18.04 LTS. Ref 27 mentions Xubuntu instead. LXQt and FeatherPad are also not supported by these sources.
  • Ref 29 does not mention leafpad.
  • Rest of the sources are alright.
  • Copyvio unlikely
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.