User talk:Slaurel/MUSH (e-mail client)

Thanks for not letting this drop. I should be able to take a close look at this over the next 48 hours. Basically I'm going to read over this as if you were thinking about sending this to WP:GA. You're under no expectation or obligation to take any of my suggestions.

I agree that notability is no longer an issue. And yes, it's overkill, but it's not the worst overkill I've seen this week.

Any chance of scanning in a couple of book covers? Screenshots?

Looking forward to giving this a closer read.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - but your agreement that notability is no longer an issue doesn't mean every other editor will be satisfied ;-) (I figured I may as well fill in nearly all of them to start with (cathartic, as you said) then trim them back as appropriate while editing.)

Is there a guideline about scanning book covers? I wasn't sure re:Copyright vs fair-use. Screenshots I can do - and I intend 'examples from the interface' to evolve into showing some of the complex things you can do with Mush that you (still) can't do with other clients - those could be text and/or screenshots. I'll ~~strikethrough~~ the below issues as I fix them.Slaurel (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ping me here when (or if) you'd like another round of comments. I'm happy to provide either discussion or another review, but you don't need my permission to move this out into user space.

As to your question: yes, I think a Zmail redirect would be appropriate.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

*CUI -> GUI? If not, spell out what CUI is. Expanded, and linked to TUI article (which I'll add an AKA edit to, later) *CLI should be spelled out and wikified.

The lead should be shortened to a paragraphs. I prefer the style where there aren't any citations in the lead and the facts in the lead are repeated in the body of the article and cited there. Something like:

MUSH is an early email client created in 1985. It features both graph and command-line interface. Mush was the progenitor of the commercial ZMail product and several of the features it introduced continue to be found in modern email programs. Examples? This is a strong claim so make sure you've got it sourced.

History

MUSH was written... A bit more context here would be really helpful. ~~In 1985 I think there was Windows for Workgroups and my internet access was limited to BITNET on a Vax terminal.~~ Windows for Workgroups came out in October 1992, and still didn't include an email client. It was just file and printer sharing.Slaurel (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Perhaps something like:

In 1985, the collection of networks that would become the internet was restricted to a few thousand academic and scientific organizations. Email clients, along with all other networked applications, were limited to character-based terminals. Email protocols had been standarized in RFC ??? by ???? and several existing email clients already existed (such as....??????). Need cites of all of that, of course.

MUSH innovated features which inspired later mail clients. Which features were innovated?

Acronym Confusion

*Doing research like this can be hella fun and you end up with lots of really cool stories about the travails and successes you have, but those stories are almost never appropriate for the article itself. It's annoying, but there ya go. I'd recommend deleting this section and putting a disambiguation template at the top that says "For the Multi-User Dungeon taxon, see...".

Features

And now we get to the overkill bit. I understand that you wrote this mostly for its cathartic values, but now that you've got it out of your system you should go back and only include features that originated with MUSH or are otherwise remarkable.

License

may have been a factor in limiting its widespread use That interesting and controversial, so you'll need a cite for it. The text of the license is something I don't feel is appropriate. I would find it more interesting to know what licenses other email clients were using at the time and compare that to what similar clients are using today.

~~===History===~~

~~Duplicated section name. at the author's urging will need a cite.~~ Fixed.Slaurel (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~===Relationship to Z-Mail===~~

~~Can probably be folded into the history section.~~ I was thinking that perhaps the article should end up being a redirect for Z-Mail as well? Slaurel (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from the interface

I don't think this contributes much. Probably best to delete it.

I'm planning to evolve it.Slaurel (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impressions

I understand that in trying to make sure the article is seen as notable you're adding lots of text and lots of references. I think that's going to end up being counterproductive: editors with an deletionist bent are going to see the lower-quality sections and then start wondering if the entire article should be deleted.

Don't be afraid of writing a short article. Here's one of mine: The News Letter of the LXIVmos. It's all of two paragraphs, but it's deletion-proof because it's only two paragraphs (and because the unique-citation-to-paragraph ratio is 4). I think you'll need more than two paragraphs, but not much more. The Mutt (email client) article is a decent model to follow (although I this this article will eventually be significantly better than that one).

I also like to be able to have a cite for every claim I make in an article. That's (more or less) the standard at WP:FA, and I find it simplifies the writing process considerably.

Finally, you're closer than you think to a solid article here. There's a bit of context and background to be added (along with some images) if you want to put this up for WP:GA.

Good work!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]