Talk:Integrated Visual Augmentation System
Latest comment: 1 month ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic Did you know nomination
 | Integrated Visual Augmentation System has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 13, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | Integrated Visual Augmentation System (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 13 December 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Integrated Visual Augmentation System appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Integrated Visual Augmentation System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Criteria edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review edit
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Seems good, did a little cleanup | Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | [Earwigs, for refrence] | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| no recent edit wars and such | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | all federal govt public domain | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Pass
|
Result edit
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
It is a good article, I think that it explains the concept and execution very well. Congratulations! |
Discussion edit
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
( )
Soldier dons IVAS 1.2 Prototype during user assessment.
... that the Integrated Visual Augmentation System can project mixed reality imagery to help train soldiers in combat? Source: "The system’s embedded training tool, the Squad Immersive Virtual Trainer, also provides Soldiers objective-based scenarios and battle drills through holographic and mixed-reality imagery, giving units the flexibility to train their squads with minimal resources." link: https://www.army.mil/article/268702/army_accepts_prototypes_of_the_most_advanced_version_of_ivas- ALT1: ... that more than 50 Microsoft engineers opposed the development of the Integrated Visual Augmentation System, as they believed this made them war profiteers? Source: "Microsoft workers are calling on their employer to cancel a $480m contract to provide the US army with augmented reality (AR) headsets, saying they “do not want to become war profiteers”. ... More than 50 employees had signed the letter as of Friday afternoon, according to an employee." link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/22/microsoft-protest-us-army-augmented-reality-headsets
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Liu1126 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Integrated Visual Augmentation System; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article meets all necessary criteria, ALT1 hook is well worded and appropriately sourced. No issues with image either, appropriately licensed, clear depiction of the item. grungaloo (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The main hook uses a WP:PRIMARY source as a citation, coupled with the wording it makes it sound a bit promotional. ALT1 is also a bit off with WP:NPOV, but I think it could be fixed by rewording it to "some Microsoft engineers". The source indicates that it was a subset who felt this way and not all. QPQ is still outstanding too. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I've changed ALT1 to use the specific number of opposing employees, which hopefully helps with the NPOV issue. WP:QPQ isn't required for first five noms; this is my first time at DYK, so I wanted to experience the process first before reviewing. Liu1126 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)