Talk:Microsoft Visual Studio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Microsoft Visual Studio was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 15, 2008 |
 |
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale |
 |
| Archives |
| About archives • Edit this box |
Contents |
[edit] Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My GA Review of this article
A good article has the following attributes:
1. It is well written. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
-
-
- I fixed some issues.
- Can you reword the paragraph about the Server Explorer tool—it is a little awkward.
- The Team Foundation Server paragraph has an incomplete sentence in the middle.
- Why the different font for names like "SVsSolution" and "SVsShell".
- Why are the languages available as part of the Express IDEs expressed in a list instead of prose?
- Pre-Installed Virtual Machines section has a string of bold text with no separating punctuation.
- Fix infobox (preview release? and languages (more?)) per Template:Infobox_Software
-
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
(c) contains no original research.
-
-
- Lot of citation issues. A lot of sections (as marked) need citations that support the text and inline citations.
-
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
-
-
- Are there any WikiArticle you could list in a See also section?
- The Supported products section seems to go into too much detail (and is also poorly sourced). Most of the current and previously supported products have their own WikiArticles, so not much need in dedicating an entire paragraph to each one--just provide a link. The article is pretty long, and (like I said) since this section is poorly sourced, I would cut it down significantly.
-
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
-
-
- Good
-
5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
-
-
- No prior issues
-
6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
-
-
- One image in good standing
- Not sure the Data tooltips screenshot is necessary.
- The Visual Studio Web Designer in code editor view image is no where close to the section that discusses the program. (The same could be said for most images--please think about placement.)
-
[edit] Conclusion
My initial feeling is to fail this GAN because I think it will take a while to fix all these issues, but since you've been waiting for a month to get this article reviewed, I'll be optimistic and put the article on hold for one week and give you a shot at it. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review this. I probably will not have enough time (or energy) to devote to this article anytime soon. But I will try to clarify some questions you raised:
- Why the different font for names like "SVsSolution" and "SVsShell"?
-
- Because they are not just names but interfaces to plug some stuff into the Visual Studio infrastructure. For regular readers, it will suffice as name, but for informed programmers, it is <code>-ified to indicate that it has some special use.
- Why are the languages available as part of the Express IDEs expressed in a list instead of prose?
-
- Because they are the same as the versions in "Included products". Duplicating the prose isn't necessary.
- Are there any WikiArticle you could list in a See also section?
-
- I don't think there is much need. Relevant articles are already linked to in the prose.
- The Supported products section seems to go into too much detail (and is also poorly sourced).
-
- Each paragraph provides a very high level overview only, and is only three or four lines in average. Chopping any further would make things lose context. There are many people who would not like to read an entire article for one language that is not in their core abilities. For this reason, a centralized and high level overview of supported products is necessary.
- I realize sourcing is an issue and that facet needs to be improved. But won't have time anytime soon. Plus with the upcoming SP1, the article might get unstable. I suggest you fail it for now. --soum talk 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
I propose the merge currently listed on this article. It appears that the creator of the article VSX was unaware of this article. Now I am no expert but both articles seem to be talking about the same things. I hence propose a merger of the article located at VSX to come here (and whatever info is already said here to just be deleted). As I said I am no expert, so maybe I have missed something, so anyone with knowledge about this topic should handle the move/next line of action. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support. The extensibility section in this article is just an introduction. It can be covered more deeply, and for this reason the VSX article is of great potential. But the way it stands, its barely more than a personal essay and does not provide too much of an encyclopedic information not already here. If that is fixed and the VSX article fleshed out considerably, it should be linked from here as a {{main}} article. Failing that, it can be merged here. --soum talk 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
