From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Debian has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linux (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Open (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Debian is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New GA nomination[edit]

Someone may have noticed a nomination. I expect editors to cooperate constructively. (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Replying to this removal, anyone may nominate any article.[1] (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The review has started. I remind that the nominator is not in a special position. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. I will wait one more day and then I will edit the article to address the reviewer's concerns. (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Debian/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. Jamesx12345 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

I'll just go through it again, and might add a few tags. Jamesx12345 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The article looks good now. For comparison, here is the diff of everything, which constitutes about 150 odd edits. Jamesx12345 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Ready. Are we still good? (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Final check, all fine. Good work. Jamesx12345 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Did you know" process[edit]

As far as I know, the Debian article is now eligible for the Wikipedia:Did you know process. I will not participate in the process, but I will wait at least one week before improving the article further, just in case other editors are interested. On the one hand, nominations can take weeks or months to reach the main page. On the other hand, this is a Top-importance Linux article. (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Debian. Jamesx12345 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

FA preparation[edit]

Since the DYK process is over, let us continue. There is no A-class in this article's WikiProjects, so the next goal is the FA-class. These are the criteria.


Feel free to overwrite this status to reflect the discussion.

    1. well-written:
    2. comprehensive:
    3. well-researched:
    4. neutral:
    5. stable:
    1. a lead:
    2. appropriate structure:
    3. consistent citations:
  1. Media:
  2. Length:


Regarding "well-written", this should be left to a professional writer when all the other criteria have been dealt with.

About "comprehensive", I really feel that major facts are missing: e.g. Debian Women. Although modern literature like "The Debian Administrator's Handbook" barely mentions Debian Women (Krafft wrote more in 2005), it is an important part of Debian. Besides the diversity statement, female ratio, financial support, etc, incidents like this one eventually happen. I will not go further with this issue, but someone else should give the "comprehensive" OK.

Concerning "well-researched", I will check once more that claims are verifiable. There are some sentences that do not sound neutral; verification will help with this.

The article looks stable, with a good lead, appropriate structure, consistent citations and enough media. Citations could be improved a bit more.

I am not sure whether the article stays focused. I will leave this assessment to another editor. (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured article tools[edit]


It be helpful to run the Featured article tools. Lentower (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

binary compatibility[edit]

I added [[File:Linux API and Linux ABI.svg|thumb|Even though they share the same code base and implement the same APIs, derivatives of Debian, such as e.g. Ubuntu, are not binary compatible with Debian. This, and the general lack of a long-time stable Linux ABI raises the bar for ISVs who want to sell proprietary software for Linux.]] to the section derivatives. I think binary compatibility and work regarding a long-time stable Linux ABI in LSB or x32 ABI deserve some more attention.

I would like ScotXW to notice that there is an effort to bring this article to the Featured status. Material must be verifiable and sources are required. There could be a sentence about Debian's position regarding LSB, but not in the Derivatives section. Binary compatibility is more than Debian-based distributions. (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Plonk User:ScotXWt@lk 22:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Multimedia support[edit]

I would like to turn "Third-party repositories" into a "Multimedia support" section. Current paragraph is targeted at The Wheezy announcement and release notes mention the improved multimedia support. Debian asked Marillat to stop using the name "debian"[11] and the official blog announced the end of[12] This repository was interfering with official maintenance. As I see it, Debian has warned users more against deb-multimedia than against non-free software. I am not aware of any other unofficial repository in this situation.

The bit about libdvdcss would go in this section.

This is not the time for a dispute resolution. If anyone is against this change, please say so and I will desist. (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Release managers section[edit]

As noted, the release manager is an important role but there are more: e.g. the technical committee. The release management is carried by a team. Debian maintains a list of leaders and a list of releases, but does not seem to maintain a list of release managers.

I will drop the list and merge the section. (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Development flowchart[edit]

I ask an able editor to upload this SVG flowchart that will replace the one in "Development procedures".

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
<svg version="1.1" width="170" height="400"
		<style type="text/css">
			text {
				font-family: sans-serif;
		<rect id="state" width="120" height="30"
		<rect id="distribution" width="120" height="30"
		<g id="arrow">
			<path d="m 60,30 0,40" style="stroke:#000"/>
			<path d="m 60,70 -5,-10 10,0 z"/>
	<rect width="170" height="400" style="fill:#fff"/>
	<g transform="translate(10,10)">
		<use xlink:href="#state"/>
		<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">upstream</text>
		<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
		<text x="70" y="50">packaging</text>
	<g transform="translate(10,80)">
		<use xlink:href="#state"/>
		<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">package</text>
		<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
		<text x="70" y="50">upload</text>
	<g transform="translate(10,150)">
		<use xlink:href="#state"/>
		<text x="60" y="20" style="text-anchor:middle">incoming</text>
		<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
		<text x="70" y="50">checks</text>
	<g transform="translate(10,220)">
		<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
		<text x="60" y="20"
		<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
		<text x="70" y="50">migration</text>
	<g transform="translate(10,290)">
		<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
		<text x="60" y="20"
		<use xlink:href="#arrow"/>
		<text x="70" y="50">freeze</text>
	<g transform="translate(10,360)">
		<use xlink:href="#distribution"/>
		<text x="60" y="20"
</svg> (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)