Talk:Windows XP/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Negative24 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is too long. It should summarize the rest of the article. Consider moving paragraphs in the lead to their respective sections in the rest of the article. For example, paragraph two probably can be shortened down to just explain that it was developed originally as two projects and then merged. Paragraph three can almost entirely be moved to the reception section.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   The lead shows many dates that don't have references. It may be repetitive but these refs need to be shown. The removed features section contains no references.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article is getting to be a bit too big, especially the development sections. The sections about WinXP being in it's Neptune/Odyssey and Whistler states should be moved to separate pages (about the development to those separate projects) and then significantly shortened.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Last major overhaul occurred about a month ago.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Main logo seems to have a disputation on WM Commons. I'm not that experienced with their policies so I don't know if that will make or break the use of that image.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The development section contains no images yet talks about many of the UI changes in that time period. It would be great if images could be placed to illustrate what those specific features looked like (I'm looking for an image like what is in the Service Pack 2 section). Also, fFix the placement of the task grouping image in User interface (it breaks the flow of the text).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm placing this on hold for about a week (can be changed!). Glaring issues include the lead and the length of the article.

• @Negative24: Hi. I am afraid I must vehemently contest your 6-B assessment for two reasons:

1. Development of Windows XP occurred under strict non-disclosure conditions, thus any image for this discussion is in violation of WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4. We have had long discussions as to why leaked screenshots are unreliable and the matter is now cut and dried.
2. You have already given a verdict of spin-off for the development section. So, requesting image for another article is no longer within the purview of this review.

Best regards

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa: I didn't realize that the development was under a non-disclosure condition or I wouldn't have asked that. I assumed that since the development was covered under many conferences that there were a few screenshots. No matter. I also considered your second reason during review. I thought that since it hasn't already been spun-off that this would be a good place to discuss the matter. Thanks for telling me. I have already updated the page. Do you have any other concerns? Thanks, -24^Talk 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there have been conferences and even usability tests. Conferences used very beautiful PowerPoint presentations with vivid decorative images too, but the images used there, although not in violation of NFCC#2 and NFCC#4, lack sufficient contextual significance for our purpose (NFCC#8 violation). Things have been different in 1997, in Bill Gates era. Maybe we get lucky and find something about Whistler if we tried a lot. But I brand that as FA material, not GA. And we also might get lucky and find event images. We can also use images like Bliss. In fact, unless I am much mistaken, the article used to have more images before boys at WP:NFCR came along... and deleted them. That's for now. Let's see where my research goes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• 6-A: Main logo's dispute seems all but resolved now. Image on Commons is deleted on 30 October 2014. I closed the case per WP:SNOW. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Review after hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review is identical since no work has been done since the first review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: