Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Page table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Page table

Raul suggested I submit this Danny's contest winner to FAC, so here it is. It has nice diagrams and some good explanation of modern VM. (Self-nomination) Dysprosia 22:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Object - Initally I supported this nomination but what Taxman had to said are valid. I can't support a nomination that lacks many things especially explaning many of technical terms to the average reader (I know nothing about Page table). Squash 05:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1.) Innadequate references. 2.) The lead section doesn't even make an attempt to explain many technical terms to the average reader. Highly technical topics are fine as FA's, but most people feel the first paragraph of the lead section should be understandable to someone with almost no knowledge of the subject. Also the grammar in the lead section is very tortured, it could be made much more understandable if it was simplified. 3.) The rest of the article doesn't do much to make it easy for someone who doesn't already know the subject to understand it either. My favorite is "clearly, the first memory access, to address 0xfff0dabe would be invalid". Well clearly, of course. At least some link to or inline explanation of hex addresses would be needed to make that accessable to more readers. You don't have to spoon feed everything, but the article should at least consider that the reader is not already entirely knowledgeable about the subject and try to offer inline explanations for all overly technical terms. 4.) A lot of dodgy language, that needs to be clarified. I could copy examples here, but I'll just try to fix what I can and ask others to do the same. 5.) Needs a lot of 'See also' links to connect it with other related topics and to be put in the proper categories to aid the reader in finding related material. Hope that helps - Taxman 13:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me begin by saying it's not necessarily always a desirable effect for an article to contain assumed knowledge (for example, if I look up Spin (physics), and don't understand what it's saying, I wouldn't blame the article, but ensure I have knowledge of some basic physics first). Regardless, I have provided a lengthy overview of how computers use memory.
    • But the article needs to at least introduce and reiterate the basics very quickly. In some spots it does indeed need to contain the assumed knowledge and weave it in well. It doesn't need to cover it in volume though. Basically the article doesn't need all the background material but the reader shouldn't have to already know the subject of the article to understand it, as this article required when I made the above comments. The lead section though does need at least the first paragraph to contain almost no undefined terms and ease the uninitiated reader in. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your first concern, if I make use of only one reference in an article, need I force myself to make use of more?

Ideally yes. It is very hard to believe one reference would validate all of the material in an article. That you know the material personally isn't good enough. Someone reading the article doesn't know you, but they can verify with references, and eventually Wikipedia can have articles that have been verified against their references. That can't even be started unless articles are well referenced to begin with. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is not feasible for me to do right now, unless I can cobble up some web references (does that count?) Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Reliable, well regarded online sources are acceptable as references. You just need to make sure you read through them and that the article is substantially confirmed by them. Then just format the external links used a references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ideally any potentially contentious points should be cited directly to a source. - Taxman 14:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

To address your second concern, to briefly explain what a page table does, one needs to mention what a virtual address is, and that it is part of a virtual memory. If you can explain what a page table is without mentioning virtual addresses, by all means, please edit the article.

Of course it doesn't need to do that, and the lead section actually does explain virtual addresses well. The problem is the grammar is very hard to parse. Thats not good for a FA for someone who doesn't already know the subject. The subject is already complicated so the difficult grammar hurts the article a lot. Even worse is that after explaining virtual memory, the lead section does not even tell what a page table is. I'm not saying it is easy to write a great lead section for an article like this, but it can be done. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'll try and fix the language. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To address your third concern, for someone who knows hex addresses (and most people in CS do), it then is clear that 4293974718 (0xffff0dabe) > 16777216 (0x1000000). Granted, there was no mention of the hexadecimal notation, which has been rectified.

To address your fourth concern, by all means explain what you find "dodgy language".

I'll see if I can put some time together to list it out here or on the talk page. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

To address your fifth concern, there are three see alsos (how many do you think is enough?). It also need not always be put into an existing category, but categories can be created. Dysprosia 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put those see also's there to start to address my own concern. It needs more, both for general and specific context though. Yes it may require the proper categories to be made. Perhaps operating systems would work. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Dysprosia 02:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but unfortunately this article has a way to go before it can be a FA. It's great material, it just needs what I have pointed out. The diagram for the lead section is great btw. That really helps with understanding the topic, but the text needs to do as well. - Taxman 04:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Can I get an update or some further feedback on this objection, given the current changes I've made? Dysprosia 01:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Concur with Taxman. JuntungWu 11:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)