Talk:Windows Product Activation/GA3

GA Reassessment

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

I am bringing this here following a brief interchange at WT:GAN. Here are my (edited) comments from there. A few points. There is an issue of reliability and independence of sources. At the moment, the entire article (bar one footnote), is based on what Microsoft itself says about its own software. That just won't work for an encyclopedia article. Product activation has been a controversial software development, but there is no sense from the WP article that that controversy exists, nor any product reviews from computing journals, nor any discussion of glitches, policy issues, legal wrangles (if there are any). I don't think an article can be GA quality without a basic coverage of these things. On issues with other company's use of product activation see:

• Product activation glitch hits Symantec (which mentions Microsoft's introduction in passing too)
• Intuit Abandons Product Activation Note this 2003 article contains this comment "Microsoft backed down from a limited activation process in Windows XP." Obviously that wasn't the case in the long run - it seems a history section may be needed.

Concerns as the process was developed in msoft, and afterwards:

• WinXP beta testers still in open revolt over product activation
• Microsoft: No Activation Changes Until Longhorn
• What to Do About Windows XP

Reports of early 'cracking' of the most recent activation system:

• Product activation system flaw found in Windows 7 follows earlier server message block problem
• Windows 7 activation crack comes as no surprise

This is just some stuff i found using Google, and i tried to ignore material that i didn't think came from reliable sources. Which brings me to the only non-Microsoft footnote: i can't see anything that would show why that webpage meets WP:RS. The WP article also lacks any introduction to the product or its purpose. The only reference to this is a sentence in the lead. The article needs more context around product activation. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The news articles you point out are good ideas for inclusion in the article. I will add them when I have the time. However, I don't really see the problem with using Microsoft's website to describe the way Windows Product Activation works. The software is proprietary, so only Microsoft knows exactly how it works and exactly what it does, because only they have the source code. As such, any other source would technically not be a reliable source, because without reverse engineering the software (illegal) they would not know exactly how it works. --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure - there is no problem in using Msoft as one source in the article, and that would be OK for explaining how it works. However, even then, you should check the PC literature to check that the review articles / news reports on it at least agree with those descriptions. Sometimes a company will sell a product saying "it achieves x by doing y" but reviews will say things like "actually, it doesn't achieve x" or "they say it does y, but we could see evidence of it". I have no reason to think there is a problem with Windows PA, i'm just saying that these sorts of issues are why we need other sources as well as Msoft to confirm the basic story, as well as using other sources to cover things like critical reception or evaluation of the product; how did it affect sales or company reputation; were there problems that led to patches other than Msoft proprietory ones; etc etc. As long as the article is based essentially solely on M'sft sites, i don't think it can meet the GA criteria, but i'm not saying get rid of all those sources. Incidentally, in searching for other sources, editors still need to pay attention to reliability, avoiding blogs, forums and self-published help sites, in favour of published journals and magazines etc. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• The article is structured in "Process", which is a decription of the minutiae of the activation, and "Windows versions with activation", which is a list that checks a variety of information on all Windows products. This is taken from Microsoft websites and one of questionable notability. There is definitely a lack of third-party sources and there is in my opinion unnecessary detail included in all of this - the result of, I believe, the manual style used. One could perform an activation using the article but gets to know only vaguely about why this procedure is significant, why and how it was introduced (one sentence about piracy in the lead), how it was received etc. I think delist on GA criterion 3. I'm also concerned about whether the non-free images have valid fair use rationales with regard to "omission would be detrimental to [reader's] understanding [of the topic]". Hekerui (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be fair here, I can take a little criticism. But I would like this to have it's seven day chance, which will give me & Michael some time to post some stuff in as it says on my talk page. I have some time coming up to find some sources and implement the stuff from above. I am now taking on the role of a contributor here. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's all fine, i'm in no hurry to close this out. I'll keep a watch. MWOAP, i think we might have had a similar exchange to this one at a Red Hat / Linux related review a couple of months ago. My advice (not just to you) is, when reviewing in this IT field (or on any product-related article), keep a close eye on the sources that are being used, both for quality (do they qualify as reliable sources) and independence (are they independent of the product etc maker / seller / etc). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The references need to be properly formatted. Bare URLs for every ref are unacceptable for GA status. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I should get to some edits tonight. Wizardman, what are you talking about? They are no bare references. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may, the references are bare in that they only give title and link, but not author/publisher, date, accessdate etc. One can format them easier with citation templates, but they are not necessary, the info can be added manually. Hekerui (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you let me know how I did on the critism paragraph? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like a note on the sourcing which I have added some cites to a source that existed in the article already. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing reassessment

The section on criticisms is exactly the sort of text - using exactly the sort of references - that I would expect in an article like this. The format of the citations has also improved. The rest of the article still has problems:

• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article
• There are still almost no non-MS references in the entire product description. Why are no "how to" manuals cited? Why no PC magazine reviews or discussions? The article simply cannot rely on Microsoft as the almost sole source of information about its own product. It would be like writing the article about a rock band citing only their own official web page or fan site.

This second issue is fatal to the article in its current form. Sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)