This article is within the scope of WikiProject Android, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Android and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AndroidWikipedia:WikiProject AndroidTemplate:WikiProject AndroidAndroid articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
I'm a first time reviewer, so I intend to ask for a more experienced review to look this over 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)
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.
It consists of a client and server on the host PC, where the server connects to the daemon on the Android device. "It consists of" is awkward and "where the server..." is confusing. This sentence feels like it wants to be several sentences explaining how ADB works in slightly more depth.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Because the lead should be a summary of the whole article. It is indeed vague, but making it more specific would likely give the summary of the security paragraph undue weight. I don't really have a good idea of a better summary.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
10:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Is there some generalization you can make about the security issues, like "ADB exposes Android to security vulnerabilities due to [whatever]"? I see your point about summarizing the article, but as it stands it feels like it conveys no information at all.
Rusalkii (
talk)
16:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Overall impression of lead: vague. There's still plenty of space before the lead gets too long, it would be good to see some more concrete descriptions of what it is, where it came from, and how it is used.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Features
It isn't clear to me what's core and what's peripheral. Perhaps format this by starting with the core goal of ADB (presumably mobile debugging from a connected computer), explaining the central features and how they're used for that, and then mentioning any other feature. Other structures would also be appropriate but it doesn't feel very useful as it stands.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Reads like a list. There's some attempt at going chronologically, but 2015 follows 2017 and version numbers are interlaced with years seemingly interchangeably.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
first beta release of the Android SDK clarify that ADB used to be part of Android SDK in this sentence rather than the next, otherwise it reads like a nonsequitor.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
In Android 12 the adb backup command will be limited. what's the current version? May want to add to infobox as well. Also, limited to what/how?
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It has been recommended to add the folder containing the binaries to the PATH environment variable, it has been recommended to also install the android-sdk-platform-tools-common package by whom?
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
In this section (and others), article goes back and forth between "device" and "phone". I assume it can be used on e.g. tablets and so device is more appropriate.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Rusalkii (
talk)
00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what could be written about this. The only thing that can be found about this is in reliable sources is that Google authored it. Also, can you take a look at the article again? I think it has been fixed, let me know if there is more that needs work. Thanks. And sorry it took me so long.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
22:26, 18 January 2022 (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)
00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
2nd opinion
Rusalkii expressed a request for a second opinion on this GAN. I'm willing to provide one, so please ping me once the nominator,
PhotographyEdits, has responded to Rusalkii's comments. Thanks for helping out at GAN! (
t ·
c) buidhe04:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Review of the updated version: The Architecture section expansion is good! Generally reads more smoothly, though there are still some rough spots in the prose. Some comments haven't been addressed, but none of them individually are make-or-break. My big concern is still criteria 3a - it feels like there are significant aspects of the program that are barely touched on. My current inclination is to say that it still needs some work before GA status.
Rusalkii, I definitely think you did a great job of doing a thorough GA review, including taking the time to verify the content against the sources! Although GA does require broadness, this is a looser criterion than "comprehensiveness" required at FAC. Also, if an aspect is not covered in reliable sources, it is not expected to be included in the article, so I would be inclined to be flexible on that point. Another issue I noticed is the lifehacker source, which is marked unreliable by
Headbomb's script. What makes this a reliable source? (
t ·
c) buidhe01:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
So you're saying that as long as all the important aspects are touched on, it's okay for a GA to not go particularly in depth on them? I know it needs to be less thorough than a FA but obviously "less thorough" is subjective.The first couple results
here seem to lean towards unreliability but not decisively, and "how to install something" seems in Lifehacker's core competency and not particularly controversial. Also, anecdotally, I've used it for instructions like that before and found it annoyingly wordy but otherwise accurate.
Rusalkii (
talk)
02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
So you're saying that as long as all the important aspects are touched on, it's okay for a GA to not go particularly in depth on them That's my understanding as well. (
t ·
c) buidhe03:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Buidhe @
Rusalkii I have replace the Lifehacker source with a book published by CRC Press, but had to remove the aspect that it is bundled with Fastboot since that is not covered in the book paragraph. Is there any other work that needs to be done on the prose? In the meantime, I have added some more links to the lede.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
14:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have some minor quibbles with the prose but overall that criteria is a pass for me. If
Buidhe thinks it's good to go on 3a then this is a pass from me.
Rusalkii (
talk)
17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Android, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Android and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AndroidWikipedia:WikiProject AndroidTemplate:WikiProject AndroidAndroid articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
I'm a first time reviewer, so I intend to ask for a more experienced review to look this over 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)
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.
It consists of a client and server on the host PC, where the server connects to the daemon on the Android device. "It consists of" is awkward and "where the server..." is confusing. This sentence feels like it wants to be several sentences explaining how ADB works in slightly more depth.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Because the lead should be a summary of the whole article. It is indeed vague, but making it more specific would likely give the summary of the security paragraph undue weight. I don't really have a good idea of a better summary.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
10:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Is there some generalization you can make about the security issues, like "ADB exposes Android to security vulnerabilities due to [whatever]"? I see your point about summarizing the article, but as it stands it feels like it conveys no information at all.
Rusalkii (
talk)
16:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Overall impression of lead: vague. There's still plenty of space before the lead gets too long, it would be good to see some more concrete descriptions of what it is, where it came from, and how it is used.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Features
It isn't clear to me what's core and what's peripheral. Perhaps format this by starting with the core goal of ADB (presumably mobile debugging from a connected computer), explaining the central features and how they're used for that, and then mentioning any other feature. Other structures would also be appropriate but it doesn't feel very useful as it stands.
Rusalkii (
talk)
19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Reads like a list. There's some attempt at going chronologically, but 2015 follows 2017 and version numbers are interlaced with years seemingly interchangeably.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
first beta release of the Android SDK clarify that ADB used to be part of Android SDK in this sentence rather than the next, otherwise it reads like a nonsequitor.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
In Android 12 the adb backup command will be limited. what's the current version? May want to add to infobox as well. Also, limited to what/how?
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It has been recommended to add the folder containing the binaries to the PATH environment variable, it has been recommended to also install the android-sdk-platform-tools-common package by whom?
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
In this section (and others), article goes back and forth between "device" and "phone". I assume it can be used on e.g. tablets and so device is more appropriate.
Rusalkii (
talk)
23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Rusalkii (
talk)
00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what could be written about this. The only thing that can be found about this is in reliable sources is that Google authored it. Also, can you take a look at the article again? I think it has been fixed, let me know if there is more that needs work. Thanks. And sorry it took me so long.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
22:26, 18 January 2022 (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)
00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
2nd opinion
Rusalkii expressed a request for a second opinion on this GAN. I'm willing to provide one, so please ping me once the nominator,
PhotographyEdits, has responded to Rusalkii's comments. Thanks for helping out at GAN! (
t ·
c) buidhe04:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Review of the updated version: The Architecture section expansion is good! Generally reads more smoothly, though there are still some rough spots in the prose. Some comments haven't been addressed, but none of them individually are make-or-break. My big concern is still criteria 3a - it feels like there are significant aspects of the program that are barely touched on. My current inclination is to say that it still needs some work before GA status.
Rusalkii, I definitely think you did a great job of doing a thorough GA review, including taking the time to verify the content against the sources! Although GA does require broadness, this is a looser criterion than "comprehensiveness" required at FAC. Also, if an aspect is not covered in reliable sources, it is not expected to be included in the article, so I would be inclined to be flexible on that point. Another issue I noticed is the lifehacker source, which is marked unreliable by
Headbomb's script. What makes this a reliable source? (
t ·
c) buidhe01:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
So you're saying that as long as all the important aspects are touched on, it's okay for a GA to not go particularly in depth on them? I know it needs to be less thorough than a FA but obviously "less thorough" is subjective.The first couple results
here seem to lean towards unreliability but not decisively, and "how to install something" seems in Lifehacker's core competency and not particularly controversial. Also, anecdotally, I've used it for instructions like that before and found it annoyingly wordy but otherwise accurate.
Rusalkii (
talk)
02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
So you're saying that as long as all the important aspects are touched on, it's okay for a GA to not go particularly in depth on them That's my understanding as well. (
t ·
c) buidhe03:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Buidhe @
Rusalkii I have replace the Lifehacker source with a book published by CRC Press, but had to remove the aspect that it is bundled with Fastboot since that is not covered in the book paragraph. Is there any other work that needs to be done on the prose? In the meantime, I have added some more links to the lede.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
14:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have some minor quibbles with the prose but overall that criteria is a pass for me. If
Buidhe thinks it's good to go on 3a then this is a pass from me.
Rusalkii (
talk)
17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply