I came across this excellent article about Linux operating systems, and I was surprised to see that it is not a featured article. After some investigation, I find that it was a candidate twice before. The last time was over a year ago. I think that a few experts in this field could bring this article up to featured status. [Disclaimer: I have not made any significant changes to the article.] Axl 11:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did a fair amount of translating from the French Linux page since about Feb. 8th. That work is still not complete, but basically I've made it up to the gaming section. After that, copyediting needs to be done, and references need to be cleaned up as well. I would like to move the interface and applications sections above philosophy, and then distributions above philosophy. I would like to know if anybody has any ideas for additional topics that need to be covered; the remaining sections on the French page are servers, security, and different embedded/supercomputer/cluster systems. I think a good plan is to get everything that the Linux article possibly needs to say in there, and then organize a little and probably split out some daughter pages (currently the page is pushing 70kb), and then write a proper lead section. There is a to do list on the article page, if you have ideas feel free to add them to that list. I think trying to rush for featured status is not the best idea, but that is definitely the goal I'm working towards. In the past few months this article has been very controversial with lots of arguments on the talk page. Chris Pickett 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Chris that more work is needed. Mike92591 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for your comments, guys. Axl 12:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Citations aren't consistent. Chunks of the article remain completely uncited as well. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse
editIt's thorough, but not good enough for FA. Much of the article is written from a pro-Linux POV. It minimizes or outright avoids criticisms, such as of the Linux copyright, from philosophical (viral licenses, instability, many forks causing incompatibility and non-standardization, perceived security issues from openness) to outright legal attacks from SCO, of usability, costs, support issues, such as from Microsoft-associated studies, the high learning curve, and the "friendly rivalries" from the various flavors of BSD Unix, which are still criticisms, whether aiming for more stability, or more security, or whatever. If you want this to be an FA, you need to be more thorough, and more balanced.
- Cite the citation neededs, there are a lot.
- n 1997 the case was settled.[38] - settled how, please?
- Copyright section needs something on the SCO controversy. That was a big deal not long ago, and had to do with copyright, it's mentioned a bit above, but shallowly.
- year 2000 U.S. dollars - link per WP:$
- Mumble something about Torvalds being in the US now. What fraction of Linux work comes from US/Finland/other sources? What fraction of Linux use is in the US/Europe/where?
- The whole Philosophy section, several subsections, has almost no inline citations. For example, first paragraph, it should be trivial to cite the C&B, and the GPL.
- adhere to POSIX, SUS, ISO, and ANSI standards where possible - not strictly true - it's always "possible", that's the point of having such standards. I understand that some places they haven't gotten to it yet, others they specifically didn't, because they thought they could do better
- numerous independent studies and articles which indicate that a modern Linux desktop using either GNOME or KDE is on par with Microsoft Windows - blatant POV. There are also plenty of studies that indicate that it isn't, mention them as well.
- Although lack of application support is often cited as a reason to use Windows over Linux, compatibility layers ... little additional effort - more blatant POV, while we do need to say about the existence of compatibility layers, this phrasing sounds like we are making excuses.
- Mention that it is the main rival to Windows, and Microsoft's actions against it: comparison studies above, the Halloween documents, Microsoft/SCO relationship, Microsoft support for Apple...