Skip to content

Go-fast CDN Technical Documentation Review

Documentation Title:

Go-fast CDN

Reviewer Information:

  • Name: [Olawore Hikmah]
  • Date of Review: [ 16/9/2024 ]
  • Review Level: [ Beginner ]

1. Summary:

The go-fast CDN is an opensource content delivery network(CDN) made using the Go language. It aims to be faster than the average CDN's and easier to use.

2. Clarity and Comprehensiveness:

  • Clarity:
  • The information is easy to understand
  • The sentences and paragraphs are clear and straightforward

  • The language is appropriate for the intended audience, though some improvements can be made. Refer to the suggestions section further below.

  • Comprehensiveness:

  • Does the documentation cover all necessary topics?
  • Are there any missing sections that are critical for understanding?
  • Does it provide sufficient examples, diagrams, or references?

Some processes could be better emphasised for clarity. Suggestions can be found in its section below.

3. Accuracy and Relevance:

  • Accuracy:

  • Are the technical details correct? Yes

  • Is there any outdated or incorrect information? No

  • Relevance:

  • Is the content relevant to the current state of the product/technology? Yes

  • Does it align with the latest best practices and standards (e.g., Google’s technical documentation style guide, Microsoft Manual of Style)? Yes

4. Structure and Organization:

  • Logical Flow:

  • Is the documentation logically structured? Yes

  • Are sections and subsections well-organized? Yes

  • Navigation:

  • Is it easy to navigate through the document? Yes

  • Are there clear headings, subheadings, and an index/table of contents? Yes

5. Visual and Design Elements:

  • Visuals:

  • Are diagrams, screenshots, and tables used effectively? None have been used

  • Are visuals clear, properly labelled, and relevant? Not applicable

  • Design:

  • Is the document aesthetically pleasing? Yes, nice and simple.

  • Is there consistent use of fonts, colors, and formatting? Yes

6. Suggestions for Improvement:

  • Provide specific, actionable suggestions to improve the documentation.

  • Mention any sections that need expansion, rephrasing, or additional content.

  • Sentences can be reconstructed to sound less blunt. For example, in the Guides page under the API section, the sentence will sound better and more professional if the statement 'of course' is omitted.

  • In the Guides page under the Usage section, it would be more appropiate to describe the interface further regardless of how little instead of mentioning that it is 'easy to use', especially for users completely new to CDNs in general.

7. Notable Strengths:

  • Highlight what the documentation does well. The documentation is straight to the point and serves its purpose well.
  • Mention sections that are particularly well-written or effective. The Contributing section is well written and thorough.

8. Identified Errors/Inconsistencies:

  • List any errors, inconsistencies, or ambiguities.
  • Provide examples where necessary.

No inconsistencies noticed

9. Best Practices Compliance:

  • Standards:

  • Does the documentation adhere to recognized standards (e.g., Google’s Documentation Guide)? Yes

  • How does it compare with industry best practices? Fair

10. Overall Assessment:

  • Provide an overall assessment of the documentation, including a summary of your key findings. Apart from a few places which require further explanation and emphasis, the documentation is straightforward and easy to use.

  • Rate the document on a scale from 1 to 5 based on overall quality and usability. 3.8

11. Additional Comments:

  • Any additional observations or comments. Nil