Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m improve clarity
Bbadger (talk | contribs)
39 edits
Line 54: Line 54:
<br /> on a new line.
<br /> on a new line.


[[User:Bbadger|Bbadger]] 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
#[[User:Anhimgr8|Anhimgr8]] 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
#[[User:Anhimgr8|Anhimgr8]] 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
#[[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)<br>
#[[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)<br>

Revision as of 16:56, 6 September 2007

Shortcuts

WikProject Free Software is a WikiProject devoted to the improvement and creation of articles pertinent to free (as in freedom) software. WikiProject Free Software is intended to improve and maintain free software articles, bring such articles to good or featured article state, and to create new free software articles. The scope of this project extends to:

In addition, within the scope of the project are articles with primary topics that are highly pertinent to free software, such as websites which often deal with free software or organizations such as SourceForge which distribute it.

Always remember to follow Wikipedia conventions, and to be bold.

Related projects are WikiProject Linux and WikiProject Computing.

Article rating statistics

Free software articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 1 3 4 3 1 12
B 10 32 27 20 3 92
C 6 49 88 112 33 288
Start 5 63 154 599 214 1,035
Stub 9 34 409 158 610
List 2 5 13 13 10 43
Category 94 94
Disambig 2 2
File 3 3
Portal 2 2
Project 2 2
Redirect 92 92
Template 36 36
Other 3 3
Assessed 24 161 320 1,156 236 419 2,316
Unassessed 393 393
Total 24 161 320 1,156 236 812 2,709


To edit ratings for articles tagged {{WPFS}}, just add |class=|importance= inside the {{}} symbols, i.e. {{WPFS|class=|importance=}}. The tag does not do this automatically, so by adding this you can rate the article.

What to do

See also: § TODOs

Here are some tasks that have to be done constantly or to almost every article. Further down the page you'll find TODO lists with one-off tasks that need to be done.

Verifying the bare minimum

Each article about a free software project should:

  1. Link to {{portal|Free Software|Floss logos.svg}}, usually in the "See also" section.
  2. Mention that it is free software.
  3. Say which free software licence(s) is(are) used by the project.
  4. Provide a link to the projects licence for confirmation (probably best done as a reference for the sentence about which free software licence the project uses).
  5. Add a {{fact}} tag to any statement that

Adding references

If you want to use an external webpage as a reference for a statement, the best way to do this is with a "cite web" template inside <ref> tags. The "cite web" template can take many optional fields, but "title" and "url" are mandatory. So here's a minimal reference:

The GNU project was launched in 1983.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
|title=GNU Initial Announcement
|}}</ref>

Or if the information isn't so obvious in the linked document, or if you can give more information, you can use some of the additional tags:

<ref>{{cite web
|title = POSIX® 1003.1 FAQ Version 1.12
|url = http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html
|quote = The name POSIX was suggested by Richard Stallman.
|date = 2006-02-02
|accessdate = 2006-07-16
|}}</ref>

Participants

If you wish to join the project, please add your name below this sentence, by adding:
#~~~~
on a new line.

Bbadger 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Anhimgr8 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Geekman314(contact me) 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KeybladeSephi Talk Contributions 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sodaplayer talk contributions 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. |SUBZ3R0| 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trisweb 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikinerd2000Talk 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zephyris Talk 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RedSpike101 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. P3net 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NerdyNSK 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Ryan 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mayur Fernandes 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ashawley 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs•count) - Count me in!
  16. Yarou 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cabalamat 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. MichaelNetzer 08:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Potatoj316 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AQ 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sean 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Muchris 12:30, 1 March 2007
  23. h2g2bob 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jonathan Roberts 8:17, 6 Marth 2007 (UTC)
  25. Superm401 - Talk 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Neal Locke 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Menasim( discuss ) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. DaniDarling 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Gronky 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. S. Gartner talk 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Hotshotesquire 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)hotshotesquire[reply]
  33. Ma11achy 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Guyjohnston 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Aditya 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. mako (talk•contribs) 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Adam1213 Talk + 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. isilanes (talk|contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Jet123 (Talk) 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. (→zelzany - review) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Tharikrish 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Daimanta 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Carpetsmoker 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Apageor2 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Kl4m 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Shruti14 t c s 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. +A.0u 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After you sign up, please get active on this page and/or on the Talk page. You may want to add some of the below todo lists to your watch list.

Templates

Articles

To tag an article as a WPFS article, please add {{WPFS}} to the top of the talk page, which yields:

WikiProject iconComputing NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This also adds it to Category:WikiProject Free Software articles.

Userbox

The WPFS userbox is transcluded by using {{User WPFS}}, which yields:

This user is in the free and open-source software task force.


Assessment

The Assessment department will focus on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Free Software related articles. This will aid us in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Assessment should be conducted following these guidelines.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

Stub, Start, and B class assessments can be made by every editor (although it is generally regarded good behaviour not to assess an article in which you have had a major influence yourself)
A class assessment is made within this project
Good Article and Feature Article assessments require formal review procedures outside of this project.

Project featured article

When enough members have been gathered, weekly votes will be taken to determine a high-quality article to be placed here in a similar manner to the standard FA.

WikiProject Free Software articles

TODOs

TODO items specific to the WikiProject

Free software articles TODO

edit watch 

Specific tasks

NaodW29-nowiki286369b71e7b327900000001
NaodW29-nowiki286369b71e7b327900000001

If you would like to help, here are some suggestions for things to do. The date in parentheses is the date on which the task was added.

  1. (2021-03-08) Current and ongoing activities of Free Software Foundation require updating and adding some more description.
  2. (2018-08-27) The Source-available software article needs to be expanded with high-quality secondary sources.
  3. (2007-10-28) The timeline of FSF's and Debian's free software definitions needs to be constructed (see Talk:The Free Software Definition#Timeline: FSD and DFSG)
  4. (2007-09-18) The European Union v. Microsoft (the anti-trust case) article needs to add mentions of FSFE, free software, and Samba.
  5. (2007-09-17) The GNU Compiler Collection article contains no information about how fast/slow or big/small the outputted programs are.
  6. (2007-05-14) The GNU/Linux naming controversy, Emacs, Common Unix Printing System, Ubuntu (operating system) and PaX articles were formerly featured articles, but have since had that status revoked. Maybe it would be easy to get them back up to Featured Article quality.
  7. (2007-04-13) The Player Project needs expansion, particularly someone with knowledge of the project to write about its history, goals, features without turning it back into an advert.
  8. (2007-01-24) Some cleanup, and some aggregation is needed for GNU toolchain
  9. (2006-09-18) Free software should be mentioned in Software engineering

Stub and short articles

edit watch 

General tasks

Shortcuts

WikProject Free Software is a WikiProject devoted to the improvement and creation of articles pertinent to free (as in freedom) software. WikiProject Free Software is intended to improve and maintain free software articles, bring such articles to good or featured article state, and to create new free software articles. The scope of this project extends to:

In addition, within the scope of the project are articles with primary topics that are highly pertinent to free software, such as websites which often deal with free software or organizations such as SourceForge which distribute it.

Always remember to follow Wikipedia conventions, and to be bold.

Related projects are WikiProject Linux and WikiProject Computing.


Article rating statistics

Free software articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 1 3 4 3 1 12
B 10 32 27 20 3 92
C 6 49 88 112 33 288
Start 5 63 154 599 214 1,035
Stub 9 34 409 158 610
List 2 5 13 13 10 43
Category 94 94
Disambig 2 2
File 3 3
Portal 2 2
Project 2 2
Redirect 92 92
Template 36 36
Other 3 3
Assessed 24 161 320 1,156 236 419 2,316
Unassessed 393 393
Total 24 161 320 1,156 236 812 2,709


To edit ratings for articles tagged {{WPFS}}, just add |class=|importance= inside the {{}} symbols, i.e. {{WPFS|class=|importance=}}. The tag does not do this automatically, so by adding this you can rate the article.

What to do

See also: § TODOs

Here are some tasks that have to be done constantly or to almost every article. Further down the page you'll find TODO lists with one-off tasks that need to be done.

Verifying the bare minimum

Each article about a free software project should:

  1. Link to {{portal|Free Software|Floss logos.svg}}, usually in the "See also" section.
  2. Mention that it is free software.
  3. Say which free software licence(s) is(are) used by the project.
  4. Provide a link to the projects licence for confirmation (probably best done as a reference for the sentence about which free software licence the project uses).
  5. Add a {{fact}} tag to any statement that

Adding references

If you want to use an external webpage as a reference for a statement, the best way to do this is with a "cite web" template inside <ref> tags. The "cite web" template can take many optional fields, but "title" and "url" are mandatory. So here's a minimal reference:

The GNU project was launched in 1983.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
|title=GNU Initial Announcement
|}}</ref>

Or if the information isn't so obvious in the linked document, or if you can give more information, you can use some of the additional tags:

<ref>{{cite web
|title = POSIX® 1003.1 FAQ Version 1.12
|url = http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html
|quote = The name POSIX was suggested by Richard Stallman.
|date = 2006-02-02
|accessdate = 2006-07-16
|}}</ref>

Participants

If you wish to join the project, please add your name below this sentence, by adding:
#~~~~
on a new line.

Bbadger 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Anhimgr8 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Geekman314(contact me) 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KeybladeSephi Talk Contributions 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sodaplayer talk contributions 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. |SUBZ3R0| 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trisweb 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikinerd2000Talk 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zephyris Talk 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RedSpike101 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. P3net 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NerdyNSK 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Ryan 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mayur Fernandes 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ashawley 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs•count) - Count me in!
  16. Yarou 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cabalamat 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. MichaelNetzer 08:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Potatoj316 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AQ 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sean 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Muchris 12:30, 1 March 2007
  23. h2g2bob 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jonathan Roberts 8:17, 6 Marth 2007 (UTC)
  25. Superm401 - Talk 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Neal Locke 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Menasim( discuss ) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. DaniDarling 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Gronky 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. S. Gartner talk 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Hotshotesquire 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)hotshotesquire[reply]
  33. Ma11achy 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Guyjohnston 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Aditya 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. mako (talk•contribs) 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Adam1213 Talk + 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. isilanes (talk|contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Jet123 (Talk) 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. (→zelzany - review) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Tharikrish 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Daimanta 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Carpetsmoker 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Apageor2 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Kl4m 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Shruti14 t c s 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. +A.0u 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After you sign up, please get active on this page and/or on the Talk page. You may want to add some of the below todo lists to your watch list.

Templates

Articles

To tag an article as a WPFS article, please add {{WPFS}} to the top of the talk page, which yields:

WikiProject iconComputing NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This also adds it to Category:WikiProject Free Software articles.

Userbox

The WPFS userbox is transcluded by using {{User WPFS}}, which yields:

This user is in the free and open-source software task force.


Assessment

The Assessment department will focus on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Free Software related articles. This will aid us in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Assessment should be conducted following these guidelines.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

Stub, Start, and B class assessments can be made by every editor (although it is generally regarded good behaviour not to assess an article in which you have had a major influence yourself)
A class assessment is made within this project
Good Article and Feature Article assessments require formal review procedures outside of this project.

Project featured article

When enough members have been gathered, weekly votes will be taken to determine a high-quality article to be placed here in a similar manner to the standard FA.

WikiProject Free Software articles

TODOs

TODO items specific to the WikiProject

Free software articles TODO

edit watch 

Specific tasks

NaodW29-nowiki286369b71e7b327900000001
NaodW29-nowiki286369b71e7b327900000001

If you would like to help, here are some suggestions for things to do. The date in parentheses is the date on which the task was added.

  1. (2021-03-08) Current and ongoing activities of Free Software Foundation require updating and adding some more description.
  2. (2018-08-27) The Source-available software article needs to be expanded with high-quality secondary sources.
  3. (2007-10-28) The timeline of FSF's and Debian's free software definitions needs to be constructed (see Talk:The Free Software Definition#Timeline: FSD and DFSG)
  4. (2007-09-18) The European Union v. Microsoft (the anti-trust case) article needs to add mentions of FSFE, free software, and Samba.
  5. (2007-09-17) The GNU Compiler Collection article contains no information about how fast/slow or big/small the outputted programs are.
  6. (2007-05-14) The GNU/Linux naming controversy, Emacs, Common Unix Printing System, Ubuntu (operating system) and PaX articles were formerly featured articles, but have since had that status revoked. Maybe it would be easy to get them back up to Featured Article quality.
  7. (2007-04-13) The Player Project needs expansion, particularly someone with knowledge of the project to write about its history, goals, features without turning it back into an advert.
  8. (2007-01-24) Some cleanup, and some aggregation is needed for GNU toolchain
  9. (2006-09-18) Free software should be mentioned in Software engineering

Stub and short articles

edit watch 

General tasks

Template loop detected: Portal:Free software/Expansion required

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force&oldid=156084320"