Talk:Android Debug Bridge/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
A: Okay. I made a couple minor grammar/phrasing edits myself, and left comments below on what is confusing or otherwise should be rewritten.

B: Generally good. A couple weasel words mentioned below should be fixed with more specific phrasings.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Copyvio: Earwig gives 6.5% similarity, with a couple sentences in the security section resembling this source. Could be rewritten but seems okay.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A: See below. The purpose of ADB could be addressed more directly, as well as the creator/origin of the tool.

B: Well focused, avoids going into excess detail or trivia.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No bias or promotional tone.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Recent history since August split from Android software development#Android Debug Bridge (ADB) has been almost entirely steady improvements by nominator PhotographyEdits, with a single incident of minor vandalism.
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):
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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Lead[edit]

I'm seeing both adb and ADB in sources, but article should not use both in prose. Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
available since 2007 available where? to whom? was it created before then? Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the shell and backups the features mentioned in the lead? Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has seen different security attacks and improvements to mitigate these This reads very vaguely. Why are these prominent enough for the lead? 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]
Images in infobox: is there an ADB specific logo that could be added? OK if not. Rusalkii (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can find, only unofficial logo's have been made. Do you think that the normal Android logo should be removed because it is too generic? PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, if there isn't an official logo the Android logo seems like the best choice to me. Rusalkii (talk) 16:32, 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[edit]

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]
Given the length of this section, the name of the file backups are saved to doesn't seem relevant. Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some graphical interfaces have been made available. Weasel words - "some"? made available how? by whom? Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This section could use an image of the GUI. Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I would rename this section Development. Rusalkii (talk) 20:43, 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]
Microsoft released an Android emulator that is able to connect using ADB Connect to what? 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]

Enablement[edit]

Section heading is confusing. Maybe "Setup"? Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Host computer section covers Windows and Ubuntu/Debian, but not Mac or any other Linux system. Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure does differ for some Android vendors. Either delete this whole sentence or specify which. 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]
(API level 17) is an API "level" a release version in this context? clarify or wikilink if possible. 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]

Architecture[edit]

Nothing wrong with the content, but it seems incomplete as a standalone section. Rusalkii (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Security[edit]

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]

General[edit]

I made some minor prose/formatting/grammar changes. Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some important topics that seem to be missing
- 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]
@Rusalkii Adding a ping. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

All nontrivial statements are cited, no sources in lead. Rusalkii (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (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[edit]

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) buidhe 04:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator[edit]

@Rusalkii Thanks for all the feedback! I will try to fix it all ASAP in the coming week. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PhotographyEdits do you know when you might be able to finish the review? (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe Sorry, I have been somewhat distracted with other work. I will try to finish working through all the remaining comments in the next few days. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently rather busy, I'll try to take a closer look as soon as possible. Rusalkii (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine, we're all volunteers with limited time here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (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.

@Buidhe: ping for that second opinion whenever you have some time. Rusalkii (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) buidhe 01:48, 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) buidhe 03:21, 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]

Yep, I'd say it's fine to pass but of course the final decision is yours. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Finishing the review now, congrats PhotographyEdits! Rusalkii (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii Thank you for reviewing and your patience. And congrats to you as well on finishing your first review! PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]