Talk:Fedora Project/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

General reassessment comments

Following this article's recent GA assessment, I was concerned that it may not meet the GA criteria. I raised these issues with the GA reviewer, who has indicated that they missed issues in the review, and have agreed that it needs reassessing. See User_talk:MWOAP#Fedora_Project_GA_review. The following issues were the ones I identified at the time:

Most of the (very few) references in the article are to internal company or project sources and may not meet either reliability criteria, or be considered independent of the subject.
The bulk of the article comprises embedded lists, which are not ideal for the nature of the article. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:EMBED.
Much of the list material reads like promotional text for the Fedora Project (for example "Printing to create a good printing experience on Fedora")
Almost nothing in the "Subprojects & Special interest groups" section is referenced, and there is no indication why any of the detailed information is in any way notable.

The referencing of the article as a whole is so marginal that the subject might not even meet Wikipedia's criterion of notability: I am presuming that further work by editors may deal with this problem. Nevertheless, the article will need significant revision and improvements in the quality of citations for it to pass. As I also suggested in the course of discussion, it might also be preferable for it to be merged into Fedora (operating system) or Red Hat, however i don't have a strong opinion on this. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this artcile is nowhere near GA status at the moment. Is the original nominator prepared to work on it? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message has been left for the original nom. I'll wait and see what happens. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to work on this to bring it up to where it should be. I don't necessarily agree with some of the comments in the re-assessment, however. There aren't any promotional texts in the article as the article doesn't show that the Fedora Project is promoting themselves over others. The Printing SIG is simply doing just that, working to create a good printing experience on Fedora. That's not competition, that working to bring things up to a standard. I'll work on adding links. All the information I provided came from the Fedora Project website. --W4otn (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be good to see the article improve, but the fact that the info is coming from the Fedora Project website is part of the problem. The article will need stronger independent / third party referencing to be a GA. Also have a look at the link about embedded lists. And think about notability - is information being included in thisd page that does not really add to an encyclopedia article, but is best left to be found on the project website (which will be an external link at the end of the page) by interested readers? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see removing the list of SIGs... I really don't think that information is necessary or needed. Any other suggestions? --W4otn (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re the SIGs. But my first concern, regarding the lack of third-party independent refs remains a big issue. As i already commented, they are so limited here, I don't know if the article would even pass a deletion discussion on notability grounds at present. Also not sure the slashdot ref is acceptable as a reliable source. I'm assuming refs exist somewhere and I'm certainly not suggesting I or anyone else take this to AfD, but the article has a way to go in this regard. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't progressing, so i will delist for now. Good luck with improving the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]