Wikipedia:Featured article review/PaX/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Pagrashtak (talk | contribs) →FARC commentary: remove |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:''Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and MoS issues (2).'' [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
:''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. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 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) |
|||
Revision as of 05:04, 26 November 2007
Review commentary
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. Pagrashtak 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. NicM 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and MoS issues (2). 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. Pagrashtak 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? Tony (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)