Wikipedia:Featured article review/PaX/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:13, 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:29, 4 December 2007.

PaX

Review commentary

Notified User:Bluefoxicy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software

This is an old one, made featured on 4 August 2004. It has no inline citations, and its only reference is the subject's documentation. There are other problems, such as section headers ("What PaX offers"), but I'm most concerned about the lack of secondary sources. Pagra shtak 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many tiny sections and short (one/two sentence) paragraphs; way way way too few citations, and they should be in a proper reference section with a consistent style rather than direct web links; too many red links; some weasel words/OR ("can be categorized"; "Some Linux distributions ..."; "A DoS attack ... is generally an annoyance" - who says?) and spotty grammar; some lack of clarity in places particularly viz what Linux itself does vs what the PaX extensions do; some of the headings are fairly unenlightening ("Significance"? "What PaX offers"?); too much unexplained jargon and tech speak, even for a technical article; the history section needs to be extended and made prose; some comparison of PaX to other offerings would be nice. If that isn't clear enough, this is no longer anywhere near FA state IMO. NicM 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and MoS issues (2). Marskell (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1(c). This article has no inline citations, and its sole reference is the PaX documentation. This article needs secondary sources to be featured quality. Pagra shtak 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—Could be good, but too much of it could be just slanted opinion. Who can tell in the absence of references? Tony (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ 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 [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|featured article review]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
+The article was '''removed''' 14:29, 4 December 2007.
+----
 ===[[PaX]]===
 ====Review commentary====
 :''Notified [[User:Bluefoxicy]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software]]''
-This is an old one, made featured on [[4 August]] [[2004]]. It has no inline citations, and its only reference is the subject's documentation. There are other problems, such as section headers ("What PaX offers"), but I'm most concerned about the lack of secondary sources. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
+This is an old one, made featured on [[4 August]] [[2004]]. It has no inline citations, and its only reference is the subject's documentation. There are other problems, such as section headers ("What PaX offers"), but I'm most concerned about the lack of secondary sources. '''[[User:Pagrashtak|<span style="color:#8855DD;">Pagra</span>]][[User talk:Pagrashtak|<span style="color:#6666AA;">shtak</span>]]''' 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 *Too many tiny sections and short (one/two sentence) paragraphs; way way way too few citations, and they should be in a proper reference section with a consistent style rather than direct web links; too many red links; some weasel words/OR ("can be categorized"; "Some Linux distributions ..."; "A DoS attack ... is generally an annoyance" - who says?) and spotty grammar; some lack of clarity in places particularly viz what Linux itself does vs what the PaX extensions do; some of the headings are fairly unenlightening ("Significance"? "What PaX offers"?); too much unexplained jargon and tech speak, even for a technical article; the history section needs to be extended and made prose; some comparison of PaX to other offerings would be nice. If that isn't clear enough, this is no longer anywhere near FA state IMO. [[User:NicM|NicM]] 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
@@ Line 8: / Line 14: @@
 :''Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and MoS issues (2).'' [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' per 1(c). This article has no inline citations, and its sole reference is the PaX documentation. This article needs secondary sources to be featured quality. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Remove''' per 1(c). This article has no inline citations, and its sole reference is the PaX documentation. This article needs secondary sources to be featured quality. '''[[User:Pagrashtak|<span style="color:#8855DD;">Pagra</span>]][[User talk:Pagrashtak|<span style="color:#6666AA;">shtak</span>]]''' 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Remove'''—Could be good, but too much of it could be just slanted opinion. Who can tell in the absence of references? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User_talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Remove'''—Could be good, but too much of it could be just slanted opinion. Who can tell in the absence of references? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Remove''' per 1c. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 00:36, 2 December 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 [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review]]. No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FARbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot-->