Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Linux/archive2

Linux[edit]

A well written article about the free operating system with the same name. Work has been done to increase NPOV, (such as more Microsoft POV, and other common critics); the entire article is written in a way that is understandable by most people. It is seen that a lot of hard work went into getting this article to this point, and I think it ought to be considered as a featured article. This is not a self nomination, as very little of this article was directly created by me. Masterhomer 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. good article. However, I think that a notes section should be included so the reader can know which source says what. Additionally, a couple parts could be expanded; there is a section with three one sentenced paragraphs. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A lot of hard work obviously went into this article. However, this article is not likely to be understood by non-computer-experts. A sentence like, "Linux started out as a terminal emulator written in IA-32 assembler and C, which was compiled into binary form and booted from a floppy disk so that it would run outside of any operating system" is meaningless to most potential readers (except perhaps for the last part). Yes, terms are wikilinked, but you can't expect readers to have to follow 100 links to understand an article, especially if many of those linked articles are going to be just as difficult to understand. The explanation of "open source" in the lead paragraph is how it should be done. I would try to rewrite this article so it is comprehensible to casual computer users who might come across the term "Linux" and be curious as to what it is. -- Mwalcoff 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not bad, but the language could be improved - there are several short sentences, short paragraphs and short sections/subsections. Inline citations could be good (see Wikipedia:Footnote). I think its just a tad bit too technical, as Mwalcoff has said. Looking good so far though! — Wackymacs 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Complete agreement with Wackymacs above. Giano | talk 13:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Great work, but still a bit too technical for the layperson. --Sjschen 03:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object - I'm a big Linux user and as much as it pains me to do this, I just don't think this article has it. It's too technical and not well-addressed at the layperson. Also, it suffers from linkcruft. I encourage you to have a good look at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. By following those guidelines you will make the article much more attractive, because let's face it, lots of links are ugly. For example of removing linkcruft in action, check out my edits to the article on God. Yeah, that's right, I edited God, and it was good. And then I took a day of rest. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]