Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Netpbm format/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.

[edit] Netpbm format

The PBM format is a great invention. It is so much easier than GIF, PNG, or the BMP file format and fun to play with. You really get your work done quickly with it. The article, whoever wrote it, describes it perfectly and should be featured as article of the day on the main page. Roman Czyborra 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Object—Unfortunately, it's rather short and unreferenced. Pagrashtak 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support There are three references and a link to the inventor, more isn't needed. Roman Czyborra 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Object The same reason as Pagra. It needs to elaborate more. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as above really. It is not comprehensive enough. There are no WP:FOOTNOTES or citations that provide references to the text. There are no criticisms of the software or views by critics. The 16-bit extension needs expanding especially. In this state i don't think it meets the criteria unfortunately. Woodym555 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support It contains the criticism that no one has officially registered a MIME type for it. And the 16-bit extension has failed so it needs no more elaboration. Roman Czyborra 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It has failed, yes, why? That needs to be explained. Who developed the system? Individual developers? A company? What were its origins? What are its failings? It is not comprehensive. (By the way, you have registered your support, you don't need to repeat it. You can use : to indent a comment or use *) Woodym555 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

16-bit formats are doomed to fail because of byte order problems and because one prefers to use typable ASCII instead of binary. Your other question is justified and I have called Jef to ask him for details on this. I will add them once he answers. Thanks for the instruction. Cheers: Roman Czyborra 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Attribution. Pagrashtak 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I read all three of them. I haven't found anything that would disqualify the three reliable sources this article is citing or any reason that would prevent Netpbm format from being a featured article. So please elaborate your exact problem with it. Roman Czyborra 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is only one source for this article: http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html . The links are just subpages of this. Even on this page it states: It should be noted that this format is egregiously inefficient. It is highly redundant, while containing a lot of information that the human eye can't even discern. Furthermore, the format allows very little information about the image besides basic color, which means you may have to couple a file in this format with other independent information to get any decent use out of it. I dont notice any comment about this in the wiki article. There are no WP:FOOTNOTES in the article at the moment. No sentences/paragraphs are cited. Look at X Window System for an example of a Featured computing article with footnotes. This does not compare. Woodym555 12:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that you've turned the external links into a reference section (presumedly as a result of reading the appropriate policy/guideline), this article actually has a reference. Now the next step is to expand the reference section with reliable secondary sources and cite using footnotes. Other problems: The article name (now Netpbm format) is not mentioned in the lead; this is confusing. Avoid second-person pronouns, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Pagrashtak 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd recommend looking at other featured articles for comparison of length, use of sources, etc. Even look over reviews for some previous FA candidates that have really been grilled to see the difficulty of achieving FA status. Consider putting this article up for peer review or expert review so that it can be expanded upon. --Midnightdreary 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - example scaled PBM image is incorrect (anti-aliased) and "extended to" commentary wrong. scruss 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.