| Revision as of 14:57, 11 May 2016 editTonystewart14 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,186 edits →OpenBSD: Add link to 2006 FA article← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:16, 11 May 2016 edit undoLaser brain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,564 edits cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ] (]) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | ] (]) 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. --] ] 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:16, 11 May 2016
OpenBSD
OpenBSD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Tony Sidaway, Risc64, Mindmatrix, Guy Harris, Czar, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Free software, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Open
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)