Talk:Windows Ultimate Extras

Release date for newest Extras?

Unless there's been yet another recent release of Ultimate Extras, I believe the sound schemes and Dream Scene content pack 3 were released on or about April 22, not May 1 as stated in the article. The release roughly coincided with RTM of XP SP3. 142.103.207.10 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Future Releases

If anyone knows of any predicted future Ultimate Extras, I think that would be a great section to add. --Sauronjim (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows Ultimate Extras/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Initial Observations

After an initial run through, I suggest improving the following-

• Adding an Infobox (optional but suggested)
• The article says - An additional 36th language pack version is available for Windows Vista that supports traditional Chinese characters with the Hong Kong encoding character set.. I would suggest adding the date of release as is mentioned in that entire section otherwise.
• The section Hold 'Em could see some improvement. Adding some more basic information about the gameplay might be helpful.
• The section Reception could be renamed Critical Reception or the subsection name Critical Reception could be removed as the entire section deals only with Critical Reception. ( Done)

I have not seen the references or the external links yet. I will suggest more detailed observations later. Before that, I would like to see these issues fixed. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional points

• Could see more images especially one before the lead (for example a logo of the suite, if available) Yashovardhan (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Not broad in its coverage - I suggest adding about the following points-
  • History
  • Security concerns (if applicable)
• Infobox and navbox use suggested as before (The wikiproject may have specific templates you wish to use for this purpose)
• As for images, I suggest adding the Windows Vista logo (or any other appropriate logo) to the article (Take care of the fair use policy).

More Suggestions will be offered when I go through all the references. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I will start the review soon. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have given my initial observations above. Please respond to them below and try improving the article as suggested. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• I will be putting the article on hold for a week to give the nominator and other interested editors time to improve on the article as suggested above. Feel free to discuss the improvements here or at the article talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Your suggestion to use Windows Vista logo is a direct violation of Wikipedia NFCC policy. Articles are forbidden from using non-free images for decoration. The subject of this article has no logo. Hence the article will have no logo. This is not negotiable.

In addition, there is no policy to force editors to use an infobox. Its appearance is totally at editor's discretion.

Not broad in coverage: Where is your proof? You have supplied none.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Thanks for letting me know. This is the first time I am reviewing an article for GA. I have not forced the editor to use infobox but only suggested its use (See initial observation where I explicitly stated its optional). Will be looking forward to more input from you. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Well, there is always a first time for everyone. I believe there is nothing against you there, as long as you back your review demands with policies and tangible facts.

We don't have many rigid rules in Wikipedia. Just the NFCC and copyright. (And you just run into NFCC. If it was unpleasant, I am sorry.)

Now, I have seen the nominator at work; he is a very thorough person. If he hasn't added history or broader coverage, it is possible that there isn't any to speak of. I'd like to hear him reassure us on this matter but if you have evidence pointing to the fact that the coverage is not broad, it helps a lot if we see that evidence. (Thanks in advance.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: No apology needed. No offense taken!

I agree that the nominator has done a lot of work here. I would love to hear back from him/her and am waiting for this. This is one reason why I put this on hold, to give the nominator some time to improve it. Those are just suggestions, as I said, and if there is no history worth writing here, I would love to overlook that point. I have looked up on the article a bit on the internet, and there were certainly lots of critical media attention on this subject (which I think the article puts up well).

Thanks once again for your suggestions!

Yashovardhan (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I saw this image([1]) at Windows Vista being used under public domain license. This was why I suggested using the Vista logo in the article as it seemed to be in Public domain. Do you think its a copyright violation there? Yashovardhan (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Commons has previously deleted all Windows logos but they have forgotten this one. I'll mark it for deletion. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is appropriate and just what's needed.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Layout seems appropriate but lead needs improvement in summarising the entire body.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All references seem to support the cited content.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are enough secondary reliable sources which support the content well.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I don't believe there is any Original research in the article and all points are well sourced.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	As of now, no copyright violation seem to exist.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	See suggestions above in comments.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Deals with all significant viewpoints especially the critical reception is dealt really good in a neutral tone.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
In fact, not much edits have taken place on the page. There seem to be no controversy associated so its naturally stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The only image used is tagged with Microsoft's Fair use policy and is used accordingly	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Caption on the only image used is appropriate.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	There has been no response to the suggestions and neither has the nominator bothered to work on them. The article has seen no improvement despite review being on hold for more than a week.

Comments from others

I would like to suggest that, before continuing, the reviewer become better acquainted with the full GA criteria, especially the details involved, and also the guide for reviewing good articles.

The "Well-written" criteria doesn't just mean that the words are well put together—there are specific things beyond "clear and concise". For example, as 1b states, it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. This article very clearly fails to meet the lead section criterion in a couple of places. First, it fails to summarize the body of the article, specifically the Contents and Critical reception sections. And while the length of the lead is okay at two paragraphs (it shouldn't be any longer, given the current size of the article as a whole), it consists almost entirely of material that isn't part of the body of the article, which is also not supposed to happen, since the lead should be a summary of the whole. The lead has that "delight" statement by a Microsoft employee—it reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia, and I think it runs afoul of the words to watch criterion. At any rate, this should be in the body of the article, and if it does stay in the lead, needs to be balanced by the critical reception info.

There does seem to be basic information missing—or at least not presented up front—about the Ultimate Extras. In particular, when things were made available: initial release, upgrades, and so on. Microsoft Tinker isn't given a date in this article, and worse, the sound scheme for it is just given as the same day as Tinker itself. Also, I think it would make sense to explicitly state (if true) that these Ultimate Extras could not be used by any other versions of Vista (or if they could, as a paid add-on, then that should be noted).

This does feel like a thin article: I agree that a History or General information section should be provided. While the Critical reception section alludes to criticism about missed schedules and the like, the article itself should include the facts behind the criticism: the initial announced plans and subsequent schedules, the actual releases, the never-released components, and so on. It's very surprising that such basic information has not been included, and the article should not be approved in its current state. Feel free to put this on hold to allow the nominator to do further work to meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks a lot for your suggestions! This is actually my first review and though I'd gone through the criteria, I might have left out the lead section part. Thanks once again for helping me here. (in fact my initial thoughts were to fail this article but then it didn't obviously meet the quick fail criteria So I gave it a full review). I'll reflect on these points in my review above. I've already put the review on hold (more so because the nominator hasn't spoken even once over here). Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)