Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Data Access Components

MDAC

Self nomination. This is a very important Microsoft technology. It is now very comprehensive and it is extensively footnoted. Compare it to the MDAC Roadmap and I think it compares favourably! I think it is ready for FAC nomination. - 203.134.166.99 08:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, is this going to be finalised soon, or are there some further issues that need to be resolved? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - The software infobox is inconsistent with others - it has a logo where others have a screenshot. Cedars 08:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised in peer review. There are no screenshots to be had of MDAC, it is a framework - not a GUI app. You mentioned headers, which I asked what you meant but never answered. Could you clarify what you meant so that I may sort this out? - 211.30.175.238 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I agree with the comment. However, the diagram is actually the real representation of MDAC and gives a great overview (IMO) of the architecture at a glance. I hope that this will overcome the objection. - 211.30.175.238 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diagram is fine. Cedars 00:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers Cedars. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cannot vouch for the technical accuracy of the content, but it's well structured and easl to follow, even with my very limited knowledge. 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to sign. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In Image:MDAC Architecture.PNG, the arrow from ".NET managed provider" to "ODBC" points upwards, while every other arrow points downwards. This makes the diagram look more complex than it actually is. --Carnildo 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - 203.134.166.99 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object It's quite a nice article, but needs a little bit of work. The lead should be longer by a paragraph or two, I think. And it needs a copyedit -- for example, Microsoft have seperated the data store from the application that needs access to it through the use of this technology: this was done because different applications need access to different types and sources of data and do not necessarily want to know how to access functionality with technology-specific methods. this sentence alone is too long, has one spelling error, a subject/verb agreement problem, plus some general diction issues (some vague pronouns that makes it unclear what the application needs access to and which technology allows the access, plus it's weird to say "applications don't want" something, since applications don't really have wants). In general, I don't really understand the article at all, but since I don't know anything about the subject, that may unavoidable; still, it's worth looking through to see if anything can be made clearer for noobs. Change to Support Tuf-Kat 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya. On review it badly needs a copyedit. Can anyone assist in this matter? - 203.134.166.99 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done a bit, probably needs more. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes. They need to be looked over, as I don't understand this topic. I also left behind a few invisible notes about unclear bits and stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix. Overall, some bits were clearer than others (may be the bits Filiocht did), but at least one author would be advised to avoid the passive voice as much as possible. Some commands are in italics, some are not, some are in <code> tags -- is there a reason? I got about halfway through, but I gotta go now. Tuf-Kat 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both you and Filiocht are legends :-) I'll continue doing some copy-editing. - 211.30.175.238 14:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a large copyedit, I'm sure there are still somethings I've missed however. What do people think now? I'm actually wondering if the history needs a copyedit also. - 203.134.166.99 02:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much improved. I'm hesitant to actually support because of the lead though. For an article of this length, it should give a two or three paragraph summary of the content. Tuf-Kat 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've lengthened the first paragraph and added a second paragraph to the lead Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! I think this is pretty much all the objections dealt with now... any others we can fix? - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks very nice, I've changed my vote. Tuf-Kat

Under Obsolete Components, DAO, the sentence "RDO 2.0 was the final version developed by Microsoft." appears. This sentence also appears under RDO. It probably doesn't belong in both places. Kelly Martin 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support. The diagram really should be a SVG. Would you like help making a SVG version? Gmaxwell 22:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... why? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be better, but I'm not good at SVG stuff and I don't see a problem with PNG, at least in the interim. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Because it's an image full of text, so even if we ignore how difficult it is to update and translate (SVG fixes that), we are still left with something that looks like crud when printed. Most of the time diagrams are made using a vector editor, so it's best for the orignal author to create the SVG. Since thats not how this one was made, I've offered to redo it myself. I've just started on it now. Once done, I'll pull my objection. :) --Gmaxwell 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The diagram is SVG now. The bottom text needs destuffing because RSVG handles text areas a little incorrectly, it's easy enough but I need to catch an plane atm. --Gmaxwell 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]