Wikipedia:Peer review/Relational database/archive1

Relational database

I personally think that this article is pretty good, but I think that there are things that I obviously can't see. This article has been a hotbed of edits in the past, but it's been stagnant since the 16th of August, so I think it's time for a fresh set of eyes. McKay 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions:

Try to shrink or even completely remove the "See also" section. There's a history part in it, why not add a history section to the article in which you could explain why these names are important? It's almost always better to put links inside the article rather than put a large "See also" section at the bottom. If you can't get rid of it, consider putting everything in a box on the right side of the page, so it takes up less space. Piet | Talk 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "Competition" section seems more like "Types of relational databases", wouldn't it be better to restructure this? I don't even think you need a Competition section since you want to distinguish RDBMS from RDB. Competition would belong in the RDBMS article, right?
There's only one, very general, category. I don't immediately see an other one, but I'd say there should be more.

Good luck, Piet | Talk 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, and done. I'm not opposed to removing the external links section, by going through them and attaching references to the article, but I'm not going to do that today. McKay 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that, I'd say external links are okay in a separate section. Just look for a logical place for them: if it's an external link about relational databases in general, put them in the separate section, if it's about one specific thing they may be better in the text. Piet | Talk 07:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]