Talk:DragonFly BSD/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by MathewTownsend in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

review
  • "Due to ongoing conflicts with other FreeBSD developers over the implementation of his ideas,[4] and other reasons, his ability to directly change the FreeBSD code was eventually revoked." - "and other reasons" sounds a little vague - can you be more specific, or else reword it?
e.g. Due to ongoing conflicts with other FreeBSD developers over the implementation of his ideas, his ability to directly change the FreeBSD code was eventually revoked.
  • I repeated Matthew Dillon in the article, as everything in the lede must be in the body of the article.
  • is "useland" a regular term, or is it slang or jargon? Do you really mean userspace?
  • I'm having difficulty accessing the sources, as they time out e.g. www.kerneltrap.org/node/14116 - if you get the chance you could archive them at WebCite.
  • There is a lot of "as well as" and "such as" - I'll try to reduce them.
  • how does the link to subsystem help? - it's not computer specific.

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • "is arguably the key" - is this a weasel word?
    • Removed the sentence: it didn't tell anything new anyway.
continue
reply

This is a nice little article. Just one more thing:

  • Both "Protecting shared resources" (unreferenced section) and "Memory management" (under referenced section) need citations.

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

    • I removed the most part of "Memory management" and merged the rest into "Protecting shared resources". The unreferenced material there was a bit misrepresenting the situation, as the difference between DragonFly's approach and the rest of Unix-like system is not that substantial. All the SFBUF/MSFBUF stuff was interesting for OS developers back then, but wasn't and still isn't of any interest to the rest of us, and as such didn't receive any coverage.
    • I added a couple of references to the "Protecting shared resources". Actually, the most part of the section is the explanation of SMP concept with only small DF-specific bits being the statements likely to be challenged, and these statements are covered in the references I linked. Unfortunately I couldn't find secondary sources on the topic, and I don't think there are such, as the whole thing is of technical detail that don't normally get past code and mailing lists, as it doesn't interfere with end users. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • ok! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar: 
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:  
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:  
    B. Remains focused:  
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Congratuations! Nice work. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply