Talk:Vaporware/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) You're lucky, this article was on my radar recently and I saw you were making improvements to it. Overall, it's of a pretty good quality, but there are some things that need to be addressed.[reply]

On the radar for deletion or improvement? :) Changes might come slow this week because of other things going on, but I'll be working on your concerns. —Sebquantic (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about a lot of the prose; in many parts, it's awkwardly worded, in others, it just plain doesn't make sense.
- Examples: "The United States Justice Department accused IBM of intentionally announcing its System/360 Model 91 computer (pictured here installed at NASA) three years before its release to gain competitive advantage over its competitor, a practice later referred to as "vaporware" "→first off, since it's a complete sentence should have a period at the end. Secondly, "a practice" implies a verb—vaporware is a noun. Even "practiced vaporware" doesn't exactly sound right.
- "InfoWorld wrote in 1985 that popular use of the world by the press was unfair to developers, who often have legitimate reasons for announcing early of releasing late." What does announcing early of releasing late mean?
- Lots of comma splices; use semi-colons or split them into multiple sentences.
I think the beginning of the article is a bit too wordy—it takes readers a while to learn what the heck the article is about. Instead of "Vaporware is a word used by writers to describe a product, usually computer hardware or software. It has no single definition, and has grown more inclusive over time. It has been used to describe products advertised bombastically that do not meet a writer's expectations. It has been used to describe products not released on the date announced, either because of unexpected problems, or because it does not exist. Labeling a product "vaporware" usually implies a negative opinion of it, or its developer." how about something along the lines of "Vaporware is a product, usually computer hardware or software, used to describe products [...] It has no single definition, and has grown [...]" and so on.
- "Vaporware is a product, [...] used to describe products [...]"? Eh? Sounds redundant. Not trying to mock you, though; you probably suggested it because the article suffers from the "refers to" disease (with, in this case, "is a word used to" at sentence one). The authors need to figure out whether the article's about the word or the concept (with maybe an etymology paragraph or two). --an odd name 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You got me :P My point is that the prose can be streamlined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about later news? This focuses a lot on the '80s and '90s, but not that much is said about the Aughts. Some statements need to be put in the context of when they were said and how much time is elapsed.

I didn't see any papers or articles saying news things about the word itself after 2000ish. (unless I missed something) It's still used all the time obviously, but I think everybody just accepted it as part of the vocabulary and moved on. What if I replace some of the older examples (like Ashton-Tate's dBase) with examples that happened last decade. That, plus rewording some things so the reader knows the word is still used in these ways today? —Sebquantic (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some print sources that I think could be incorporated into the article. Send me an email and I'll reply with an attachment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and send you something tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the merger of the awful list it should be auto-failed. All you have to do is look at it to wonder where NPOV went. Just look at the Scarlet camera bashing. It's one of the many hardware products in Wired's list, and not even the top hw product there. Plus, that's just a list for 2009. Where's the historical perspective. The other entries have the similar issues. Pcap ping 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of valid cleanup tags in the article is grounds for a quick-fail... SnottyWong talk 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I accidently removed this from my watchlist and promptly forgot about it. Snotty is correct, in that there are cleanup tags meriting a quick-fail; Sebquantic, can you address those in a timely manner? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he can't; just fail it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.