Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linux/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I am suprised that this hasn't pass as "featured article" the first time round. It may not be the best technically written article [1], but it is definitely the most entertaining to read. Squash 02:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. Enjoyable to read
  2. Long article
  3. Addresses a variety of things
  4. Wikilinks to long related articles
  • Support Nominator supports. Squash 00:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And also a frequently-changing platform for all sorts of personal crusades. Object. Almafeta 04:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not actionable == Therefore invalid.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got to object to this one, much of the article reads more like apologetics than a neutral treatment. There is also a great deal of unreferenced material in there. iMeowbot~Mw 14:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Unreference material. Have you got any examples? Squash 02:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, as a regular contributor. It's a continuous edit war and attracts the sort of open source advocate who thinks POV is something like FUD and is therefore something he couldn't possibly do. Specific objections: 1. hagiographic. 2. In dire need of criticisms section that will survive the advocates. 3. In dire need of stabilisation in a way that will survive the advocates. Needs to be structured so obviously correctly that it will survive the advocates. Should be much longer in general, I suspect, though that's not specific enough to be actionable. Also, it failed a nomination a few months ago. - David Gerard 23:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Constant edit wars happen on many articles, that should not however be a reason to deny FAC listing.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Edit wars are a sufficient anti-FAC reason. These articles display the best of wikipedia, Edit wars are not the best of wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 08:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Every single article to reach the mainpage ends up with some sort of an edit war, sorry but to deny it simply for that fact is idiotic.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 02:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • No they don't. Many get vandalized a bit or a lot, but that is very different from edit warring. Many get vandalized hardly at all and have no edit war to speak of. And edit wars after being placed in the most prominent place on one of the top 100 sites in the English language is a different thing than being in an edit warring state while being nominated. More simply no ongoing edit wars is one of the criteria by which to decide whether an article should be featured or not. You should read those. Finally, if you want your opinion to be heard and valued, you would be better off not calling someone's opinion "idiotic". - Taxman 20:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Taxman is correct and ZayZayEM is incorrect. Being prone to edit wars does not, in and of itself, disqualify an article from being featurable; however, being the subject of a current NPOV/accuracy dispute is. So if the contributors to a particular article are able to hammer out their differences, there's nothing to stop a particular article from being featurable. On the other hand, David seems to think that this article has problems with exactly that. →Raul654 05:42, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with David Gerard. Saw some additional things too: all of the references are to pro Linux resources. That shows through in the positive POV in the article. Citing statements to sources to avoid POV especially on contentious points, is part of what is needed to reach NPOV. Also, besides the intro and saying the word free sofware, nothing else I saw in the article covers the GPL and the implications caused by the kernel and much of the rest of the distribution being licensed that way. That point doesn't need to dominate the article and we must be careful that it doesn't, but it should at least be covered with a paragraph or so. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the lead section as it is one of the defining characteristics. As mentioned, simply saying it is free software and linking to that is not enough. - Taxman 16:29, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object' "Usability and market share" seems like a POV screed. For instance, we have the following: "However, argued advantages of Linux, such as lower cost, fewer security vulnerabilities, and lack of vendor lock-in have spurred a growing number of high-profile cases of mass adoption of Linux by corporations and governments for specific purposes." I see no qualifications of who those high-profile mass adoption cases are, I don't believe that it's correct that there are fewer security vulnerabilities (I was under the impression there are just as many, only they are fixed faster due to being open source). This bit has no information about KDE or GNOME, which makes a lot of sense due to the fact that these are very usable now, and the GNOME project has software guidelines and has done user testing, while KDE is very easy to use and keeps getting easier. Under the "Support" section there is no information about LinuxCare or other Linux support options, or anything about highly-qualified support staff. There is no section about Linux certifications. There is no section that gives a run-down of the main distributions like Debian, RedHat, Gentoo and Slackware (for instance). There section on software development doesn't seem to cover kernel development or libraries. The history section is missing a whole bunch of info on the history of Linux, such as the Debian project starting, the Mindcraft trials, the starting of RedHat, the Andy Tanenbaum vs. Linus Torvalds flamewar, etc, etc, etc. Overall, too many objections for this article as it's not complete enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I'll have to agree with you on the POV issue Squash 02:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)