Wikipedia:Featured article review/Windows 2000/archive1

Windows 2000

Review commentary

Notified: User:Warren, User:Jdlowery, User:AlistairMcMillan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows

I am nominating this article for FAR because it no longer meets the Featured Article criteria, particularly:

• 1c - quite a bit of the article is now completely unsourced, including some direct quotes, almost all of the Architecture section, several chunks of the Common functionality and Server family functionality Section, almost all of the Deployment section, the entire Editions section, all of Total cost of ownership, etc.

• 1b and 1d - while a huge amount of the article discusses features, there is almost no information on how well received the software was, sales numbers, etc. The only reception type information is security criticisms, which seems imbalanced and lacking in neutrality to be a top level section without other reception information.

• 1a - could use a new copy edit as it is no longer well-written, with several grammar and spelling mistakes.

• 2b - seems several later sections could easily be combined into a single one. The menu was also set only show 1st headers, but I've already fixed that.

• 3 - excessive images, including the logo being included twice; four images of the software box, one for addition, which are completely unnecessary and seem more like decoration than anything else.

• 4 - 60k in length, likely because it goes into far too much detail on the software features and usage, which seems to go against the idea that Wikipedia is not a software manual and not an advertisement. The technical aspects easily take up over half the article, and could be greatly reduced for brevity. I think the blow by blow should be left to tech articles and manuals.

Collectonian (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

God forbid an article on a technical subject contain technical details! Windows 2000 is an enormous topic; Wikipedia has hundreds of articles that discuss components included with it. Because of the sheer size of the subject being discussed, each successive Windows operating system article focuses on what's new to that release, and in the case of Windows 2000, it turns out that there's quite a lot to talk about. We had the same problem with Windows Vista, whose "new features" section had to be split into seven sub-articles.

Most of the text in the Windows 2000 article is actually sourced from the book references (esp. Inside Windows 2000), but Harvard-style referencing needs to be applied to it. -/- Warren 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't know why this is still featured. A lot of work has gone into it, but...
• Why are there so many lists everywhere? Prose is always better. Long lists should be moved out into their own articles.
• I can even see internal URLs instead of proper citation formatting (see Language and locale support sub-section, at the end of the paragraph).
• Too many images - do we really need to see the boxes for every edition?
• Why is there random bolding in places? Doesn't seem to comply with WP:MOS
• The article is rather technical, for someone who doesn't have a clue about computers. The meaning of kernel is not explained.
• Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any mention of sales figures, and no 'reception' section?
• Looks like this one needs to go back to square one to get sorted out.

— Wackymacs (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is good, but may be too long for the average person to read. I suggest splitting it up into multiple sections just like what has been done with the Windows XP and Windows Vista articles. What if we made a section for features, editions, and support. I think this would be a great way to clean up the article a bit. We also should try and find some citations for un-cited sources. I will try to start on this soon. Jdlowery (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like many articles in WP, it suffers from corporatese. I've started to hack away at such grotesque stuff as "While all editions of Windows 2000 are targeted to different markets, they each share a core set of common functionality" (Whatever "functionality" may means, can't even slow readers figure that what's shared is common?); "Windows 2000 can be installed and deployed to corporate desktops" (What's the distinction between installation and deployment, how does it matter whether the 'puter is on a desk or on the floor, and what's distinctively corporate about this?); and "The public received the full version of Windows 2000 on February 17 2000" ("Received"? 17 February was a day that this member of the public spent not buying Win2k, let alone shoplifting or downloading it). However, this is going to take some time, and this rather mystical treatment of the products of large US corporations is so common across Wikipedia that I start to think that its perps aren't just forgetting they're not writing corporate image copy but instead actually like this stuff. Morenoodles (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), POV (1d), images (3), and length (4). Marskell (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff since nomination, appears nothing is happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - 1c. --Peter Andersen (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)