Wikipedia:Featured article review/Btrieve/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:20, 13 April 2008.

---

Btrieve

Review commentary

• Notified of this article, all editors with more than 5 edits to it, including User talk:Rugby471 and User talk:Ta bu shi da yu and the relevent wikiproject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Databases.

The article is NOT adequately referenced under current guidelines per 1(c), especially WP:WHEN noted under 1(c). Entire sections are unreferenced, and certain obvious opinions and analysis are untied to the person that provided the analysis. For a few specific examples (and no, this list is not comprehensive, so fixing only these will not solve the problem):

• From Novell acquisition: "Version 6.0 was released in June 1992, however it was not promoted extensively by Novell, and due to enhancements (such as the change from pre-imaging to shadow-paging) it was incompatible with previous versions of Btrieve. The market did not increase much for Btrieve and it did not see wide adoption due to these issues."
• From Standalone Workstation: "This leads to some peculiar issues. If Btrieve uses Windows file sharing and has the database engine open files directly on a file share, for instance, and there is network instability (or even if a network cable is unplugged) during an update the fields used to link one Btrieve file to another can become unsynchronized (to all intents and purposes the data loses its relationships or links to other data) and the database file itself can get corrupted (though the chance of this is reduced due to pre-image paging)."

As a whole, the article looks as though it was passed under a much older and less stringent set of FA guidelines (it looks to have been passed in 2004) and could use for a re-review and re-write to bring it up to modern standards with regard to referencing, copyediting, and MOS standards. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggeted FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist hardly anything is cited, and most of the cites are not thrid party at all. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove There's nothing happening here; comments are not addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Multiple issues, no work. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• We can hold this for a few days as Mike Christie has indicated there may be someone willing to work. Marskell (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I spoke to my contact at Pervasive Software and they are interested in helping bring this back to featured standard. I'd expect there to be little activity until after the weekend, of course. I've explained about WP:COI and I will advise them on any conflicts they come across. Mike Christie (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've been in email contact with Pervasive this week explaining the use of sources and so on. I'll keep tabs on this; please ping me if you consider closing this and I'll check with Pervasive again. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.