Wikipedia:Peer review/Debian/archive1

Debian

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what needs to be done to improve it to FA status.

Thanks, ff m 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and fairly detailed article, but still needs a lot of work to get to FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

For each abbreviation, introduce it right after the first use of the longer word - so Debian (pronounced [ˈdɛbiən]) is a computer operating system (OS) composed entirely of software...
The article needs more refs - for example the 3rd, 4th and 6th paragraphs in History or much of Project organization need refs. Every paragraph, every statistic, every direct quote, and every extraordinary claim needs a reference - see WP:CITE and WP:V This is probably the biggest obstacle to FA.
There are several one sentence paragraphs - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
Do not have direct external links in the article - make them inline refs instead. For example A list of many important positions in the Debian project is available at the Debian organization web page. A deeper analysis of Debian leadership can be found in this paper by Siobhan O'Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro.
Article has too many bullet points and is too list-y - comvert to prose for FA. See WP:WIAFA - article needs to have prose approaching brilliant
Images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to set their size. See WP:MOS#Images
A model article is often very helpful / useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. OpenBSD and Windows 2000 are FAs and possible useful models.
Refs need more information in some cases - for example internet refs should have url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and the other cite templates should help.
Try to make sure all refs meet WP:RS, especially for FAC. Many of the sources are from Debian itself - try to get more independent third party sources and add some critical reception too.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

References need some formatting work to make them consistent. Web sites need at the least, publisher and last access date. More information is better.
Some of the references seem to be to mailing lists, etc. Others are to the denebian site itself. Consider finding third-party sources for some of these.
When the references fixed up, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll try to look over the sources from a reliablility standpoint.

You said you were wanting FAC soon, and I just looked at sources like I would have at FAC. I did not look over the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]