Talk:Windows 3.1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Duonaut (talk · contribs) 08:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Duonaut and I plan to carry out this article's GAN review. I'll first check this against the "immediate failure" criteria. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria: None obvious so far. Any that pop up on deeper review will be addressed later.
2. It contains copyright violations: None seen.
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid: N/A
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page: No edit warring; editing is relatively slow.
5. A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered: No such nomination.

In all I believe it is able to proceed to review under the main good article criteria. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1(a)

@Vacant0: I've basically finished reviewing the article against criterion 1(a), that is: clarity of prose, spelling, grammar, etc. Most of this was clear, though I made a few copyedits to eliminate a few things; in particular, I noticed an overusage of the past participle (has done, has had, etc.) where simple past (did, had, etc.) would be more appropriate. These I fixed, unless later noted. Same thing with commas after certain conjunctive adverbs, though this usage is more debatable. Now on to what remains:

In two places the article has something to the effect of "...it allowed users to share files, printers, and chat online..." This would seem to imply it allowed users to share printers. I presume what was implied by this is that it allowed users to print things, and in this case I would say "it allowed users to share files, print, and chat online", but I'll leave it to you just in case it means something different or you would prefer it phrased differently.

 Done I think that when I read that it mentioned that users were able to connect to printers via networks. I'll change it up a bit. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In the section on Windows 3.1 features it says "It is an MDI application". I presume it is the File Manager, but I'll leave it to you in case it meant something else. If it was the File Manager, I'd say "The File Manager is an MDI application".

 Done Yeah that might have been confusing. It's related to the File Manager, fixed that. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a sentence talking about the Calendar's file extension (that I copyedited) that seems a bit strange. Maybe adding more information on what it does would be beneficial. If not possible, no problem. I wouldn't say it's a violation of 1(a) necessarily.

A sentence partly reads: "Several printers were improved in Windows 3.1". I think this refers to compatibility or drivers, but I'm not sure which. If you know, I'd recommend editing that sentence for clarity.

 Done Drivers were improved. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The article mentions that Windows 3.1 "runs on 16-bit version of Windows." I think this would be better saying it runs as a 16-bit version of Windows, or something similar. I'll leave it up to you how to phrase this.

 Done --Vacant0 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A sentence about the Eastern European version reads: "The Czech, Hungarian, and Polish terms required this version, while the Russian ones required the Russian version of Windows 3.1." What does terms mean here, if you know? The language, or something else?

 Done I've amended it per the source. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The article mentions that a Workgroups version "had also allowed Windows to use the NetBEUI protocol." Does this mean that Workgroups introduced support for that? If so, I would suggest "It also introduced support for the NetBEUI protocol" instead.

 Done NetBEUI was developed back in 1985, although I think that WfW was the first one to use it. I'll change that. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"The amount of RAM is dependent; if the user is on the network and if the network requires a lot of memory, more RAM will be needed." I think this phrasing is awkward, although only for the first part. Perhaps "The amount of RAM needed is dependent on certain variables;" or something similar. Again, I'll leave it up to you as my replacement seems somewhat awkward too.

 Done I've changed that per the source. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, I changed a sentence on problems with Windows 3.1x to "However, Windows 3.1 was also known to have certain problems;" I wasn't sure whether the previous version was indicating that it was criticized for this or merely that such problems exist. If you know, and it doesn't match up, I can change it.

That looks better. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time in dealing with this. If you have any problems with my changes please feel free to notify me and explain, and I'll get back to you. Until then, I'll check against criterion 1(b). Thanks. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1(b)

1(b) criteria were passed. Lead Passed. Technically four, but functionally three paragraphs, which is appropriate for such an article. Layout passed after some improvement; the See also section was slightly modified as prominent links from the body are proscribed. Words to watch also passed. Onto 2. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2

I have completed the GAN review and I'll add a table after this showing the current status once I check over criteria 1(a) again. For criteria 2 I noticed a few minor problems with (b) and one with (c), but overall the article is very well sourced.

I added a source in the first section that's more explicit about the acclaim of Windows 3.1x.

The fact that Windows 3.0 sold 10 million copies should have a source, source 3 verifies only the release date of 3.1x.

 Done Was already present in Ref 1. I've added the ref to that sentence. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think source 59 used the wrong article/page number. Unless it's verifying something else, SMB is mentioned on page 69 and also on 65 as opposed to 66.

 Done Typo, fixed now. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Source 75 verifies that Windows 3.0 had these problems, rather than 3.1. Either a typo was made or you're looking for an article in the next issue.

 Done My bad. I've removed that. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides this, it passes, though I would recommend adding page numbers to some of the books (if possible, if not it is certainly not required to pass as many of those statements are verified by other sources). Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added missing pages. Vacant0 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Other

It passes criteria 4-6 easily and I don't think there's any problems with it as regards criterion 3. So I will count 3-6 as passed. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Here's the current status, once you get the citation issues fixed it should be a pass. I'll give you 7 days to do this, if you for some reason should need an extension notify me and I'd be happy to oblige. Thanks. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Rereviewing

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

With your corrections I think the article has passed all the criteria. I'll mark it as such shortly. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! Vacant0 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)