Talk:15.ai/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|pass|Well written throughout, though the "Resistance from voice actors" subsection seems redundant? I suppose it's not exactly the same as the mention of impersonation and fraud above it, but more information included there would be useful.

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|pass|Looks good. The lead section summarizes the article concisely.

}}

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|pass|Notes and references look good.

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|pass|The other sources look reliable, but there are a few instances of potentially unreliable sources:

As for (4), Youtube is not considered a reliable source (I learned it the hard way, myself) so that citation should be removed entirely, even if the publisher is generally known to be reputable.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|pass|The phrase "—as is the case with 15.ai—" in the "Copyrighted material in deep learning subsection" should be left out because the citation itself does not say this directly, and instead can be inferred by the reader.

The citation attached to the sentence explaining how the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary reduced the set of phonemes from 50 to 39 doesn't seem to explicitly support it. Is there a better citation that explains these changes explicitly instead of just linking the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's home page?

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|2d|pass|No copyright violations or plagiarism.

}}

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|pass|The main topic is addressed.

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|pass|Good amount of focus. The Troy Baker scandal did seem to delve into the Twitter exchange quite a bit, but considering that they were also the focus of attention in the cited articles, this should be fine.

}}

{{GATable/item|4|pass|WP:EDITORIAL: Remove the word "significantly" in "significantly reducing the required training time". The preface "Although the application costs several thousands of dollars a month to keep up and maintain" is unnecessary, unless you find a reliable source for this.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|5|pass|A couple minor disagreements on certain things here and there from a few editors (usually about grammar and word choice), but appears stable for the most part.

}}

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|pass|Images are tagged correctly. I noticed that the original link to the logo that was uploaded to Commons [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:15_ai_Transparent.png] has been nominated for deletion since April. Is this a problem? If not, ignore this.

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|pass|The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.

}}

{{GATable/item|7|pass|On hold. The article in its current state is close to ready for good article status, but some changes need to be made regarding the citations and neutrality.

All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

}}