Talk:Linux/Archive 9

message: I've shifted the pro/con thing from the intro into the market adoption section. The second half of the article still needs some loving to give it a definite sense of direction, so this should probably be moved elsewhere, but I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article lead. Chris Cunningham 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added second part only for balance, please feel free to improve it. I don't feel like going into a too detailed pro/con thing that will attract trolls and original research "Linux doesn't detect my wireless card", or "it doesn't run [...] game"  and such...  -- AdrianTM 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the balanced statement should remain in the lead section. However, please refrain from getting into an edit war over this; I have recently nominated Linux for Good Article and would not like to see it disqualified under the stability criteria due to an edit war. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you say why? In general it seems inappropriate to get involved in critical analysis in an article intro. As noted by the editor who removed it, Linux is the only major OS article which does this. Chris Cunningham 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I've archived the recent non-productive debate about what the article should be called. It was getting mind-numbingly repetitive and it was pretty obvious that it would have carried on indefinitely. Chris Cunningham 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Fail (lead) Pass
:2. Factually accurate? OK
:3. Broad in coverage? OK (needs more in the history section)
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* To begin with, the lead section reads like an advertisement. Also, it is a bit on the short size.
::This complaint is usually raised by mediocre writers who are unsettled by good writing in Wikipedia. I had the same complaint when I wrote about Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Mediocrity stinks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm certainly not "unsettled" by the "good writing" you just promoted to the second sentence of the article. It just looks like cheap advocacy, which is exactly what the FA criticism opposes. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to involve myself into a fight which is what the first inflamatory sentence you wrote Samsara wants us to do. I will just say that the modification you partook in enhanced the quality of the lead section but the use of recent isn't adequate to wikipedia for it tries to stay time independent. Lincher 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Break it up, please! We are here to improve Linux to Good Article status, not to fight. Could you please take a look at four articles where I have written the lead sections (AdventureQuest, Homerun (film), I Not Stupid and I Not Stupid Too)? As the nominator, I would be happy to help rewrite the lead section, but I would like several other editors to determine whether I am sufficiently qualified (i.e. skilled in lead sections) to write a GA-quality lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see that there's anything wrong with the current intro, other than that it could mention Linux's predominance in the server market in a second paragraph. Samsara's edit was too prominently placed, but the article as a whole has always had a rather strange neglect of Linux's primary market role. If you think you can write a good lead then go ahead and be bold. Chris Cunningham 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your comments, however, could you guide me to where we are directed to have citations after punctuation. In my academic writing, possibly an Australian thing, however, I always put citations inside of punctuation. Ansell 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:FOOT, indirectly from the Chicago Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With peer-reviewed journals, the cite is before the punctuation but on wikipedia it is like C.Cunningham says in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style's style. Lincher 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to help rewrite the lead section. You may wish to look at four lead sections I have written (AdventureQuest, Homerun (film), I Not Stupid and I Not Stupid Too), to determine whether I am sufficiently qualified to rewrite the lead section of Linux. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, be brave, edit away and we'll see how it goes (just make sure you'll keep the same format for explanation about "GNU/Linux" otherwise you'll have to deal with trolls: from one side or another) -- AdrianTM 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Since the article still has about a day of on hold period, I was wondering if the editors were considering answering the other comments that have been made about the History & Development sections? Lincher 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA regards

message: From Talk:Software build -- "the source code for current versions of the Linux operating system is believed to consist of millions of lines of source code in thousands of files" -- Don't we know? Is there really any uncertainty about this issue, or is this an example of weasel wording? WP:WEASEL -- 201.50.249.78 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it's weasle wording. --Yath 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "source code is believed to consist"? 

message: Some comments weren't taken into considerations during the on hold period and thus the article still doesn't meet the GA requirements. Lincher 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thw new layout proposed would totally fuck up the article. --AlexOvShaolin 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed