Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/GNU/Linux naming controversy/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review | GNU/Linux naming controversy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:36, 23 April 2007 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits →[]: segment← Previous edit Revision as of 06:34, 25 April 2007 edit undoJanizary (talk | contribs)1,601 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
**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. &mdash; ''']]''' 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. &mdash; ''']]''' 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====

Revision as of 06:34, 25 April 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)