# Talk:Dansk Datamatik Center

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dansk Datamatik Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Some c/e done, also see comments below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Ideally there would be identifiers such as isbn for all print sources, but I don't see that as necessary for GA level.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

"80 Kb code and 110 Kb data" I assume this is Kilobit but I'm not sure. It should be specified in the article.
"Well-formedness criteria were used to supply additional constraints on operations beyond what was defined by the abstract syntax." I am not quite sure what this means, possibly it should be rewritten to be more clear or include relevant wikilinks.
the Vienna Development Method — I think it would benefit from a bit more explanation what this is
What is OEM?
"A year later DDC-I, Inc. followed in the United States" doesn't explain the connection
"seeding them with as many as a hundred software designers and developers who had worked at DDC" -> the verb "seeding" is unnecessary jargon
(t · c) buidhe 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:  Thanks very much for taking on this review.  I believe I have now made changes to address all of your listed comments.  I also looked at your direct copyedits and I am fine with them, although in one case I further elaborated on the point being made.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)