Talk:SAS (software)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General

First, congratulations. You have improved so much since the last time I reviewed one of your articles. I really am impressed by the quality of your work. I knew I was right in believing in you :)

Thanks! I'm impressed by how much AGF I got even as I made bad COI edits for a long time before making good ones. CorporateM (Talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you to name the references and move the to the {{reflist}}. That way, editing the article will be a much easier process. I do this for my FAs.

I don't understand what you mean. CorporateM (Talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Looks okay.

Technical overview and terminology

I'd only recommend removing the components' list and examples. I don't think they are important enough to be mentioned.

Hrm, I'm not sure. The original was attempting to be a comprehensive list, but the current list is very selective based on those components that are often included in profile stories and most profile stories name a few of the more important components. Lists of products/features/components are often an indication of breaching WP:NOT a directory for COI/promotion, but in this case my concern is the opposite. SAS markets their products based on their use cases, but developers still see it as components and I think some of the SAS developers here on Wikipedia might beat me with a stick if I removed the components alltogether. Or maybe, I'm way off, I don't know. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

"The following year a full version was released with SAS 72" --> "as SAS 72", no?

Done

Development

"A few years later, SAS 82" --> "Three years later, ..." If you are aiming to jump to FAC in the future, using specific numbers will make your life more easy

Done

"SAS version 4 had limited features, but made SAS more accessible. Version 5 introduced..." Wait. What are versions 4 and 5?

It's all referring to the same software. At first it was named after the year of the release; SAS 76 in 1976, SAS 79 in 1979 and SAS 82 in 1982 (three releases so far. Are you following me?). Then they switched it to version numbers and named the fourth release SAS 4 and counted up from there. I can add more explanation if you like, I'm pretty sure I could find a source for it.

"In 1985 SAS, which was previously written in PL/I, Fortran, and assembly language, was re-written in the C programming language." Try to avoid overcharging sentences. Being specific and to-the-point is always better. I'd recommend using this: "In 1985, SAS was rewritten in the C programming language. This change allowed for SAS' Multivendor Architecture and for it to run on UNIX, MS-DOS, and Windows. It was previously written in PL/I, Fortran, and assembly language."
- Maybe also link PL/I, Fortran and assembly language.
- Maybe explain a bit what this multivendor architecture is about. I sort of get the idea, but I'm not 100% sure I am getting it as I should.

Done I see my original text was misleading. The multivendor architecture is what allows it to run on multiple operating systems, but I presented these as two separate things.

"Updated versions of JMP were released in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008,[25][26] 2009,[27] 2010,[28] [29] and 2012.[30] [31]" Is there really a need to mention each update? I'd go with "Updated versions of JMP were released constantly from 2000, with the most recent one shipped in 2012." or something. Just a suggestion though.

Done Makes sense, especially because JMP (statistical software) already has a separate article I brought up to GA a while back. Technically it's original synthesis, but I think it's covered by common sense.

"SAS version 6 was used throughout the 1990s" and released when?
- Know what? I think you will actually benefit more from having a table listing all the SAS releases, with year and significant improvements. That way you won't have to repeatedly point out which year what was released, and could focus text on improvements and other significant things (as you already did, so cheers). I know this is not necessary for GAN, so I'm not gonna hold promotion if you decide not to do it, but it would be nice!

Meh, I don't like tables and it wouldn't integrate well with some of the early history + it would be a pretty substantial overhaul and a lot of coding work for a very marginal improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history

"as the software's primary GUI." What is GUI? (I know it stands for Graphic User Interface but many readers won't)

Done

Same with CRM. I wouldn't need to hover over the link to know what CRM stands for in this case (CRM has several meanings in the computing world)

Done

"In 2008 SAS announced Project Unity, a project to integrate" I think "a project" is redundant. I'd go with "Project Unity, designed to integrate"

Done

"integration with R" with what?

My battery is flatlining at 1%, but let me look into this tomorrow. I couldn't find it in the source off-the-bat and I'm not sure if it is the R programming language or the software of the company that is known for using it. CorporateM (Talk) 04:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done R (programming language)

All for now! → Call me Hahc21 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Everything else looks good. So, I'm passing. I can't believe you used 71 sources! → Call me Hahc21 16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]