Wikipedia:Peer review/Windows 2000/archive1

Windows 2000[edit]

I need some help with the todo list. Also help with the "Architecture" section. There is a LOT more info that we need to get this to featured article status! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've dealt with the architecture section now. What do people think? Should be properly referenced. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a sucker for sub-section structure simplicity. It is possible to combine some of the subsections under "Architecture"? - Peter Isotalo 13:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The subsections are all quite massive and quite discrete. I was going to make each of the executive systems a seperate subsection, but realised this was not the right way of doing things. However, the object manager is a core part of the system that all executive subsystems must go through to create objects so have kept this. However, I'm quite open to suggestions. How do you suggest we modify the structure? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Windows 2000 architecture.PNG really dominates the article and, IMO, is rather distracting as is. There are also a great many stub sections that should be combined into larger sub sections. This will reduce the size of the TOC (which is a bit overwhelming by itself; esp given the size of this article). Getting close otherwise. --mav 00:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into reducing the size of that image. Which stub sections should be coalesced? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Any section that contains one paragraph or less (3 sentences are needed to make a real paragraph :) should be given a real critical look as to whether or not it really does need its own section. If that is the case, then the section may need to be expanded. --mav 00:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, fair enough. I've coalesced the User mode section to one section, however I'm not prepared to coalesce the microkernel and hardware abstraction layer into one section. The kernel mode needs a structure that breaks up the various components - this is the only real way of giving the structure some sort of sense to the reader. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, maybe this structure might be better. Have a look and tell me what you think! The article is still a long way from being finished. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much better. :) A little bit of fleshing out, esp in the ==Core functionality== section should do it. --mav 11:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I concur with mav. Looks a lot better now. / Peter Isotalo 11:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
        Cool. I have started to flesh out core functionality. Perhaps this should be called "Common functionality"? I say this because there is still stuff that must be written about Windows 2000 Server, like a very brief description of Active Directory, DFS and RRAS must be written about. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image; could it be a little bit more exciting, with some open windows, or some of the helper applications running (notepad, calculator and so forth)? I understand that it can't be too distracting, but it looks awfully bland. Compare it with the image for Windows XP or Windows_3.1, for example, although this latter image is perhaps a little too busy. At the moment, the picture for Windows 2000 is just a blank desktop with the start menu, very similar to the image for Windows 98 (perhaps this is intentional). I'm still running '98, so I can't really help.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erg... I don't have a copy of Windows 2000 myself! I run Windows XP at work... Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: have now almost done all the NTFS5 section. Needs to have something on sparse files, if someone wants to fill this in - with footnotes, if you please :-) - then I wouldn't object. Note that I've edited in the sections I think we need. - Ta bu shi da yu 19:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: OK, I have almost (almost!) completed this article. There are several more things to do:

Fill in "Disability support"
Add info about the recovery console to the "Utilities" section
Fill in the "DFS" section
Fill in the "Volume Fault Tolerance" section
Double check the "Versions" section - the Datacenter bit doesn't seem quite right to me...
Research the TCO section
Add a very brief history section in front of the "Architecture" section

Yep, the article is pretty massive. Not much I can about this though... Windows 2000 is a pretty vast system! I'm not even sure I'm going to add in the networking bits. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is getting too big to handle. Once you are done expanding it will be time to look at the article and see what can be spun off into daughter articles and be replaced by a summary here. Getting real close to the director's cut stage. :) --mav 12:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ya :-) I don't know how good at spinning off to the daughter articles though... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3: so close now! However, I need to know what people think about adding info on networking support and terminal services. These are pretty integral to Windows 2000... but the article is now almost twice the recommended size (it's now about 58-59KB!) Not sure what to do about that... also, the article is in desperate need of a thorough copyedit for grammar and spelling mistakes. Also, the lead section also needs to be totally rewritten. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]