Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows Vista/archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:31, 7 December 2007.
Windows Vista[edit]
- You may be looking for a different FAC: see correcting old FA archive errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- previous FAC
The Windows Vista article has been improved since its previous FAC and has references for all of its statements and no "citation needed" templates. Since Windows Vista has been released it is no longer subject to massive changes. The Previous FAC can be found here. Alexfusco5 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The second and third paragraphs of the first section run without references. That's too long a run perhaps? And for the new features, rather than provide a "laundry-list", perhaps a neat summary of the most significant features makes for easier reading? Manderiko (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agree with Manderiko on both counts, and have indicated additional places where references are needed in the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Me too agree with Manderiko... The section 2 is very long. Should be summarized instead of a "laundry-list"...Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support if; Vista is an exceptional Operating System in that it has unusually poor public reception for a version of Windows, and unusually high nbers of consumers and business say (in polls) that they would rather use XP or Mac instead of Vista. If this information is in the article, I would support making it featured. If this significant aspect is lacking, I would not support it as being a featured article. Althepal 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose. I guess I have to, since some people are supporting in spite of the severe lack of references in some areas. The tags are there, let me know when you've addressed them. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is a fairly well-written article, but it definately needs to be more adequately cited, especially in the first half of the article. Thingg (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.