Talk:DragonFly BSD/GA1

GA Review

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

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

• I'll review this article. I usually copy edit as I go but feel free to revert anything I do. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• • I came here when these "other reasons" were already in place. I hoped to come across them, but then just forgot them at all. Now removed them.
  • "Userland" is a term that denotes the processes that run outside the kernel. There probably is some more formal term, but this word is the most common naming.
  • I'll walk through the sources with "archive.org" – all of them are archived there, I believe. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlinked subsystem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• "is arguably the key" - is this a weasel word?
  • Removed the sentence: it didn't tell anything new anyway.

continue

• SMP - is this Symmetric multiprocessing or Symmetric Multiprocessor System, or what? - whenever possible, spell out the abbreviation on first mention (for people like me).
  • Hard to say: these article share the same topic. I changed "SMP systems" to "Symmetric Multiprocessor Systems", next entry of "SMP" to "symmetric multiprocessing (SMP)" and unlinked the third one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• • 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)
• ok! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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)