Talk:Moto G54 5G/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: D4n2016 (talk · contribs) 00:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Will review this.

Note

This fails Criteria #3a of the GAN criteria, which is that it focuses on the major aspects of the phone. The article is mainly composed of the phone's hardware and does not have information on the phone's development. There are also different variations of the phone, such as one for the China and India market and a 'power' one as seen here. Such additions would not be appropriate to add during the GAN review, as it is a long way from meeting Criteria #3. I fear that without any further information, it may be a permastub. My comments questioning the notability of the subject may be a bit of a hyperbole but it was a legitimate thought during the GAN review given how it mainly focuses on the phone's hardware and software. I will not bring this up for discussion here as notability is not part of the GAN requirement. D4n2016, please read my comments as well as other GA phone articles, like Pixel 6.

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

• The Moto G54 5G (Cancunf) I pressume you meant to say the "Moto G54 5G (Cancun)" based on some research. You also need to add citations for its codename

Specifications

• Wikilink LCD and and Android 13
• It runs on Android 13 with a planned upgrade to Android 14 but in the infobox it's currently on Android 15?
• Wikilink IMG to Imagine Technologies

Camera

• Completely uncited.
• Phase detection autofocus can be fully wikilinked

Reception

• Add some quotes from the reviewer themselves

Others

• Missing info: According to this list, there seems to be 'j', India, and 'Power' variations. Sources such as this and this. Perhaps you should make the article broader
• Would suggest merging the first three sections into one complete section (hardware and software)
• Is there info on any development of the phone, like when it was first announced? I cannot find any articles based on the sources listed in Wikipedia:RSPLIST. I fear that this article may be a permastub based on the current info available, though is it ok to cite reviews for the history section of the phone?
• Website in infobox is dead

Sources

• All sources need archived links. Also include the name of the website.

@D4n2016: Not really comfortable with the article at the moment. There's missing info on the phone's development, as well as its variations. In fact, to be blunt, I'm questioning whether the article is even notable at all. It honestly seems like any other budget phone.

With that said, I will have to fail this nomination after disccusing it with other editors. I suggest reading existing GAs such as Pixel 6. If you have any questions or concerns, please put it on my talk page. I wish you luck with your future GANs! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 04:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)