Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:29, 31 May 2016

OpenBSD

OpenBSD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/OpenBSD
• Featured article candidates/OpenBSD/Archive1

• Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive1
• Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive2

Notified: Tony Sidaway, Risc64, Mindmatrix, Guy Harris, Czar, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Free software, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Open

Review comments

I am nominating this featured article for review because in the ten years since the FAC and six years since the previous FA review, the article has undergone significant changes (see the article from 2006) and has fallen short of FA criteria in several areas:

1(a): Not particularly well-written, mostly bland technical writing.

1(b): Not comprehensive, very brief in several sections.

1(c): Citations are lacking in several areas, particularly sections 2-4.

2(a): Five paragraphs in lead; much of this content probably belongs in the main article but not the lead.

I have notified several users above who have contributed a fair amount to the article, as well as one user who also thought this should be brought to FAR. I also notified the projects that have this article listed as Top or High priority. The user who initially brought it to FA, as well as the user who initiated the previous FAR, are both inactive, and the article only averages one edit every 2.1 days as it was only heavily edited during the initial FAC around 2005-06. However, there should be a few users that I notified above and others in the WikiProjects who would be willing to help improve the article and possibly work to keep it as FA (although it does need a considerable amount of work).

I also have a basic peer review of the article that could improve it somewhat to start:

• American vs. British spellings: License and licence both used in lead
• OpenBSD Project: P should be lowercase
• “M:tier” in quotes: not sure if this is proper
• Component and third party sections: Too listy
• Development, 3rd PP: Inverted quotes (double within single)

Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Gosh, this really has been battered to death since the last FAR. It's practically unrecognizable and nowhere near even GA status. Lots of unsourced text, lots of choppy sections, probably requires a complete rewrite. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• My comments are on the article's talk page but in short, the unsourced sections are alone enough work to warrant the delisting. The prose also is a long way from brilliant. I'd be curious what it would be like to rebuild from its 2006 state as opposed to blowing it up and starting over. Good luck to anyone who takes it on  czar 15:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sometimes I advocate a blanket revert to the last known good state, but that obviously wouldn't be appropriate here because of everything that's probably occurred with an active OS. It looks like Tony Sidaway updated the article quite a bit in June 2012. I'd love to hear their opinion, but it looks like they have not edited actively in recent times. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• As noted above, I did notify Tony Sidaway and a few others who had made some recent edits. Tony's last edit to this article was in July 2015, so he might still be around and provide some good comments. I think the 2006 version, and to some extent even the current one, could be used as templates for sources and content and build from there. It'll be a lot of work, but doesn't need to be from scratch. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading through this article, it's B-class content at best, and probably closer to C-class. There exist gaps in the history section, no section or significant discussion on the features of OpenBSD, the majority of the article discusses more minor aspects (funding, security, etc.). The present content is fine although needing of a copyedit; however substantial expansion is needed to bring this article to even a GA. Esquivalience 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• I also noticed that there are mostly named references, with a few exceptions which were likely added more recently. There were some references added to the lead since the start of this FAR, so if there's a consensus to continue having all sources be named refs at the end of the article, we could standardize this throughout. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'm still around. It looks as if this nomination has brought renewed attention to the article, resulting in attempts to improve it. That's good news. On the use of the spellings licence and license in the lede, note that these are the normal British spellings of the noun and the verb respectively according to the OED, which also lists licence as an accepted variant spelling for the verb. I no longer remember whether the article is supposed to be in any particular dialect and I have no strong opinions on which dialect the article should be written in. --TS 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nice to see you Tony. I agree that User:Michael Reed has done a great job so far and the article is improving rapidly. For the license spelling, I went ahead and changed it to the American version since that was the spelling used in 35 out of 37 instances in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

FARC comments

Concerns raised in the review section included prose, coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Michael Reed has done a great job of cleaning up the article. I have also made some changes, and several others have contributed occasionally. I would have to agree with another comment above, however, that the article will probably need a rewrite to be FA-quality. We can use the improved existing version and compare it with older versions to develop a structure for the article that will ensure complete coverage while also being up-to-date. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Also, I noticed the article has had 175 edits in the past three weeks, whereas the article only had one edit every two weeks or so before. It may be well short of FA criteria, but that's a wonderful statistic! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)