| Revision as of 11:36, 23 April 2007 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits →[]: segment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:04, 23 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!--FARtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| The article was '''removed''' 07:54, 10 May 2007. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ====Review commentary==== | ====Review commentary==== | ||
| ::''Messages left at ] and ]''. ] (]) 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | ::''Messages left at ] and ]''. ] (]) 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comments'''—from the lead and first para: | *'''Comments'''—from the lead and first para: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 16: | ||
| **It's an article about a debate, so it's understandable that one needs quotes to demonstrate the controversy. I don't really have a problem with those quotes, but that's just me. Tony is infinitely better with this sort of article, so I'll stop. — ''']]''' 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | **It's an article about a debate, so it's understandable that one needs quotes to demonstrate the controversy. I don't really have a problem with those quotes, but that's just me. Tony is infinitely better with this sort of article, so I'll stop. — ''']]''' 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment:''' The block quotation style might work if there weren't atrocious boxes around them breaking the flow. ] 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment:''' The block quotation style might work if there weren't atrocious boxes around them breaking the flow. ] 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * I would say this article lacks a cohesive direction and has serveral point of view issues, but neither are excessive. It's biggest problem is the uncited information. If the pro Linux and pro GNU/Linux points could be collected better, it would help with the article. ] 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====FARC commentary==== | ====FARC commentary==== | ||
| :''Suggested FA criteria concerns are language (1a), POV (1d), stability (1e), and structural issues (2).'' ] 11:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | :''Suggested FA criteria concerns are language (1a), POV (1d), stability (1e), and structural issues (2).'' ] 11:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::What is the purpose of this "FARC commentary" section? Your comment looks like a normal comment, and so should be presented like everyone elses' comments. As it is, it is confusing because I am wondering if "FARC commentary" is a part of the FARC process that I haven't read about. ] 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::FAR is the first part of the process, while FARC commentary is the second. There are instructions above explaining more adequately than I can which explain the FAR/FARC process. ] 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove''' per 1c and 1a. Citations need proper formatting, while the hefty amount of quotations impede readability and disrupt the prose. ] 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove''', could probably use a cleanup tag. ] (]) 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Remove'''—issues remain. — ''']]''' 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in ]. No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FARbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 13:04, 23 March 2022
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 07:54, 10 May 2007.
GNU/Linux naming controversy
Review commentary
- Messages left at Linux and David Gerard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comments—from the lead and first para:
- In general, the lead is too short; it should be doubled in size.
- "GNU/Linux is the term promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), its founder Richard Stallman, and its supporters, for operating systems that include the FSF's GNU utilities and the Linux kernel." Split into two sentences, or integrate the promotion of the term into another sentence. It's not a huge issue, but it'll help create a straightforward lead.
- "Proponents of the Linux term dispute this term for a number of reasons." Simplify this to "several reasons" instead of "a number of" reasons.
- "Plans for the GNU operating system were made in 1983 and in September of that year they were announced publicly." missing punctuation, and could probably stand for some slight reconstruction.
- It's an article about a debate, so it's understandable that one needs quotes to demonstrate the controversy. I don't really have a problem with those quotes, but that's just me. Tony is infinitely better with this sort of article, so I'll stop. — Deckiller 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The block quotation style might work if there weren't atrocious boxes around them breaking the flow. Punctured Bicycle 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would say this article lacks a cohesive direction and has serveral point of view issues, but neither are excessive. It's biggest problem is the uncited information. If the pro Linux and pro GNU/Linux points could be collected better, it would help with the article. Janizary 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are language (1a), POV (1d), stability (1e), and structural issues (2). Marskell 11:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of this "FARC commentary" section? Your comment looks like a normal comment, and so should be presented like everyone elses' comments. As it is, it is confusing because I am wondering if "FARC commentary" is a part of the FARC process that I haven't read about. Gronky 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- FAR is the first part of the process, while FARC commentary is the second. There are instructions above explaining more adequately than I can which explain the FAR/FARC process. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of this "FARC commentary" section? Your comment looks like a normal comment, and so should be presented like everyone elses' comments. As it is, it is confusing because I am wondering if "FARC commentary" is a part of the FARC process that I haven't read about. Gronky 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove per 1c and 1a. Citations need proper formatting, while the hefty amount of quotations impede readability and disrupt the prose. LuciferMorgan 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove, could probably use a cleanup tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Remove—issues remain. — Deckiller 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.