Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ubuntu (Linux distribution)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

[edit] Review commentary

Original author aware: messages left at Computer science and Linux. Sandy 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I brought this article to FA standard some time ago. Its structure has since deteriorated to the point where it's no longer a joy to read. Each paragraph now has a heading (!) and important points from the history section have been dumped in a "response" section at the end of the article. The table of contents is now unnecessarily cluttered as a result, and the formatting of references is inconsistent. If I start editing the article again, it is likely it will no longer meet the stability criterion. Please demote. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last version that I was involved in and would endorse: [1]

Today's version: [2]

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: the article was nowhere near usual FA standard when it was promoted and drew harsh criticism for its rushed FA candidacy at the time. Significant work has gone into improving it since; the supposed header sprawl consists of one additional section within the article and two extra standard sections at the end (See Also, Further Reading). The current article is comprehensive and contrary to Samsara's claim is well-maintained. I see no reason why further progressive editing cannot take place after talk discussion, nor do I see any effort to start such a process. Chris Cunningham 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about how you felt the article was not FA standard, and how the changes made to it have improved it? I've added links to the two versions we would be discussing below, for everybody's convenience. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure.
  • The lead is less advertish. It doesn't provide weaselly claims about having a lively community and then use external links to said forums' front page as a reference to back up the claim.
    • That's not even true. Check your facts please. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Leading from that, the references used are far more useful for supporting evidence. The old edit's references are primarily in the form of an Ubuntu site map. And there are far too many of them. Bogus references are unhelpful.
    • I see 35 references in the old version and 35 references in the current one. And they're mostly from Ubuntu/Edubuntu etc. So what's changed in that department? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The features section doesn't have the ghastly technical fluff about sudo, and has significant tone cleanup.
    • If you look through the peer reviews and talk archives, you'll find that the "fluff" was specifically requested at one point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The package classification section is more coherent.
    • How? You haven't even resolved the concern about the table and the spoken version. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The further reading section is properly marked-up as per other articles rather than hidden in the references.
My only real issue with the current edit in comparion to the old one is that it suffers from H3 creep. I don't have a problem with collapsing most of the sub-headers, and I certainly think that this is easy enough to correct that it shouldn't force ejection from the FA list. Chris Cunningham 12:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blah. This article was clear and concise in its first life as an FA, even to non-linux users, but now its wordy, confusing and filled with linux-cruft. The headings on every paragraph (and some of those paragraphs are 2 sentences) don't even give the article a chance to flow in a natural way. Other than trivial formatting, I don't see much that has been improved. The "light-hearted nod" thing is more weasely and ad-like than what was in there before. Demote unless this thing regains its coherency. Right now its laying in bits and pieces on the floor. pschemp | talk 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? "clear and concise"? The current version is shorter than the FA version! As for the light-hearted nod thing, I can't really see another way of explaining it; any suggestions? Chris Cunningham 13:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Without a citation, it is very clearly original research. It reads like some of those sitcom article where some Wikipedian gives their interpretation of what the storyline was intended to convey in a particular episode. Stick with the hard facts! What does the slogan have to do with anything, especially the lead? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It's trivial to remove the explanation if a ref can't be found. I'm failing to see why this was never raised in the article discussion, instead leaping straight to a delisting request. Chris Cunningham 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If that was the *only* issue, you'd be right, but its not. Looking at the talk page and seeing the previous cries for blood the day this was on the front page certainly gives the impression that talk page discussion would be useless. But, what does it matter? You can defend it here just as well. Additionally, this is the best place to get eyes on the article that aren't normally involved. That reason alone is worth listing it here. pschemp | talk 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
After the talk page rage when it was originally frontpaged I went through and corrected things where I saw a need for improvement rather than trying to get the page delisted. I find it hard to assume good faith in the delisting petition here when the involved editors haven't made any recent effort to edit the article. Chris Cunningham 14:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they would have if they hadn't had their heads bitten off by the "this is a crappy FA" club. Certainly that little club didn't assume good faith, but just proceeded to talk shite about an article that was just fine. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt about this being listed here, but its perfectly reasonable given the crappy quality of the article and the hostility of the talk page. Listing it here is a good faith attempt to get it improved and get some new eyes on it. If you choose not to believe that fine. Continue to complain by all means, I won't stop you. pschemp | talk 14:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget that you would have never risen to the status of "steward of the FA" if it hadn't been for my efforts in making it an FA in the first place. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry? I don't feel that either of those comments was particularly civil. I'm continuing to edit the article in line with the criticisms received here, I don't imagine that the eventual decision to delist it or not will make a difference there, and it's far more worthy of my time than having pointed comments directed at me by a double-team of moderators. Chris Cunningham 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I won't comment on whether or not a previous version was better than the current, there are a few issues I have with the current version. Not all of the web site references have dates. There is a request for expansion in the article, which should be resolved. Articles do not get promoted with requests for expansion, so that is a key issue if an existing featured article goes under review. Jay32183 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Beyond the concerns addressed here, my biggest concern with the article is that it's awfully dull to read. The article hits all the bases, but seems more concerned with being terse than being informative. What's interesting about Ubuntu – not just which components does it include, but why they are important choices? What sets it apart from other distros? I hope the article can be fleshed out a little – as it stands, it's less insightful than most of the other computing FAs. Twinxor t 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Prose. This needs serious copy-editing. There's flab and awkwardness. Here are examples of why the whole thing needs work:
    • "Ubantu concentrates on ... freedom from restriction of use". Huh?
    • "a private company founded and funded by"—This is what Fowler called a "jingle".
      • It is, however, correct. Can you suggest a valid alternative? - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 10:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh-oh, the dreaded "in order to" crops up. Please make them all just "to". Otherwise, I'll do a Hitler salute.
    • "In contrast with some other general-purpose forks of Debian such as Xandros, Linspire and Libranet, Canonical have stayed close to Debian's philosophy with Ubuntu and use free software most of the time rather than relying on closed-source add-ons as part of their business model."—Remove "some" (there's a "such as" already). "Stayed close to" is ungainly. How about a comma after "Ubantu"? "Most of the time" could be "mostly use". "As part of" could be just "in".
    • "and provided an initial funding of US$10 million"—Which word should go?

Tony 09:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure (2), stability (1e), and prose (1a). Marskell 11:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A significant effort to improve thus far, but I feel that the task is not yet finished. There's an "unfinished" tag on the last section. Tony 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The editing activity you point to is solely to do with the release of a new version, and not at all with any active effort to address the concerns brought forward in this FARC discussion. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Stability is difficult to assess in the midst of change, but a high proportion of current changes are reversions and partial reversions. Parts of the article are not well referenced (two requests for citation), none of Tony's concerns about prose have been addressed, and the complaint about structure has only resulted in a proliferation of sub-headings, 2.1-2.4 being based on one editor's original research on what the aims of Ubuntu are.[3] More info on the actual aims may be found here. Still thinking strong demote. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there anyway you can revert to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&oldid=66851282 version, and keep whatever needed updates? Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If I have support to do that, I'll do it as soon as I have a bit more time. If it's going to end in edit wars, I'm not available. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm with Samsara: if you can revert and improve the article, I'll support - otherwise, I'm a Remove per Samsara's commentary above. Sandy (Talk) 21:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll support a revert as well Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Strong oppose a revert. The original is no more worthy of FA status than the current and is now heavily out of date regardless of the numerous improvements made since. The nominee is well aware of the current editing situation and his comments are out of line. If it's to be de-listed so be it, but it's nothing to do with my having supposedly negatively impacted the article. Chris Cunningham 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The original [...] is now heavily out of date regardless of the numerous improvements made since. This is what I mean. There is no more sense to his actions than there is to the above sentence. I'd hesitate to make such a comment if I hadn't tried to work with this editor for a while — unsuccessfully. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Whatever. Bad faith and rank-pulling have been the hallmarks of all recent free software arguments with this moderator, starting with the out-of-the-blue nom for delisting of this article and continuing through random personal attacks on my talk page (and wikiquote too, now I think about it). Ego wars hurt wikipedia and this nom is a prime example. Continual efforts to engage action to improve the article have met with failure and reverting would further harm the article. Chris Cunningham 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it would be counterproductive to move to such an old edit; not only do we lose five months of news, but there's been significant work in some areas of the article since then. I don't think reverting to this version would move the article closer to FA standard. Twinxor t 10:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • But that is not what's being proposed. What's being proposed is to revert the article and have someone go through the 500-odd edits since then to salvage any good additions. I've said I'll do it, but it's obvious that Chris' attitude of rabidly deleting references and material has not changed, and I have stated that I am not available if this is so. I just don't believe that others will be around to revert when Chris starts his attack on the new version, so the article will have to be demoted. It reads too much like an FAQ at the moment, and it continues to be unstable. With the increasing introduction of bullet points and subheadings, the structure suffers. I can see the road to salvage this article, but the road is blocked by some big boulders. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Samsara. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok Samsara makes a strong point, Remove Jaranda wat's sup 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per Samsara as well. Jay32183 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)