Wikipedia:Featured article review/Common Unix Printing System/archive1

Common Unix Printing System[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Ta bu shi da yu, Computing, Linux, and Macintosh. Sandy 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) A message was left by AzaToth at Version 0.5. Sandy 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was made into FA 2005-01-19, with the changes to current as here (no specified revision marked thou). What I see mostly, is lacking in criteria 1a and 1c. _→AzaToth 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and think that if all the "general" references were used as inline references, we'd be much closer to heaven already. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this article hit the main page, I don't think that our featured article director Raul654 would agree that it isn't compelling prose. As to it not being factually accurate, please explain what parts have problems. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What your icon Raul654 thinks has nothing to do with reality, if he has something to comment, pleas ask him to comment here, otherwise it's totally unimportant what he thinks. but if you now refuse to read the article your self, the section "User Interface tools" lacks for the most part any references what so ever. _→AzaToth 16:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to modify your language, as you are flying very close to making a personal attack. Raul is in no way my "icon". I suggest you be more careful in the remarks you make, as they aren't particularly civil, or even accurate. Apart from a few issues picked up by Sandy (which I do thank her for!) there really isn't much to go on. AzaToth, you say that the article is inaccurate and not excellent prose. Please show me where the article is inaccurate. In the meantime, I'm going to have another look at the things Sandy highlighted. Overall, the article is, IMO, still FA worthy. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my language, I just got angry that you pointed out that if Raul made it into the first page one year ago, disqualify any future review. _→AzaToth 06:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'ok, but that wasn't my point. I don't think the prose is dire, and in fact it is mostly compelling. Factually it is sound. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, oops :), then if we go the the issue here, I reacted strongly as there are multiple places words like "easier" are used. In the section "Scheduler", thre paragraphs are starting with the word "The scheduler" createing a feeling of a list made into text straight away. The section "MIME databases" may be a violation of §4, as MIME isn't specific for CUPS. The section after ("Filtering process") contains a bit too many red links, also that section I can't find one reference for. Section "Compatibility" lacks prose, needs a major rewite. Section "GNOME" lacks references. Section "ESP Print Pro" reads like an advertisement. Section "CUPS web-based administration interface" contains too much POV. I hope this could be fixed, but as it is now, I woldn't call it FA-quality. _→AzaToth 10:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu, I can understand why your remark has drawn objections: I, for one, have had enough of bootlicking, or even the slight appearance of it. Tony 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The prose could be smoothed out— random examples:

With CUPS, it is far easier than before for printer manufacturers and printer driver developers to create drivers that work natively on the print server.
- With CUPS, printer manufacturers and printer driver developers can more easily create drivers that work natively on the print server.
The scheduler allows for classes of printers. This is a method of grouping printers together to allow applications to send jobs to the class, which then means the scheduler will pick the first available printer in the class and direct the job to that printer.
- The scheduler allows for classes of printers; applications can send jobs to the group of printers in a class, allowing the scheduler to direct the job to the first available printer.
There is a need for more inline citations—example: Apple Computer is using CUPS as printing system in their operating system Mac OS X from Version 10.2 (Jaguar) on. Converting the citations to cite.php would be helpful, as standardization makes it easier for new editors to contribute in the future. Sandy 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but none of these issues are big enough for the article to be removed via FARC. That is my main concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's very hard to read, because the prose could flow better, as in the examples I gave. Those were just some random examples, giving an idea of work needed on the prose. Someimes a new set of eyes on the copy edit can help: I'm not sure who's a good computer article copy editor though. I can't help because I don't know the territory. Hope it helped, Sandy 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ise" or "ize"? Choose one consistently. Stubby paragraphs fragment the flow of information. Successive sentence subjects could be bolded or italicised in running prose, if more explicit listing is required. Tony 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, Ta bu, do I really see that you said above: "Given that this article hit the main page, I don't think that our featured article director Raul654 would agree that it isn't compelling prose."? The way I feel at the moment (very disappointed in Raul's current performance as Director of FAC), I'm going to say that his judgement as to what is compelling prose and what is not doesn't appear to come into it much. Tony 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With two rather strange calls in a week, perhaps Raul654 is overworked, or just too busy with real life commitments. Unfortunately, no one is infallible, which is why most Wiki decisions are based on community consensus. Sandy 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain from commenting on FAC - all I feel is that FA stars are given out like bags of Smarties these days. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel; Raul seems to want to keep up his 35–40% pass rate irrespective of what crap gets through. I think it's high time that the Director exercised more substantive judgement him/herself. Tony 15:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 18:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient inline cites. LuciferMorgan 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still numerous external jumps, and the prose still has some rough areas, needing a fresh set of eyes for a complete runthrough. There are redundancies ("The filter system then passes the data on to a backend—a special filter that sends print data to a device or network connection"), snakes ("After the pre-filtering is done, the data is sent directly to a CUPS backend (if using a PostScript printer), is passed to another filter (like Foomatic by linuxprinting.org), or is passed to Ghostscript, which coverts the PostScript into an intermediary CUPS-raster format (the MIME type is application/vnd.cups-raster), and organizational problems ("The backends are the ways in which data is sent to the printer" is found after multiple prior mentions of backends). I hope Tony will have a look and make some suggestions on the prose. Sandy (Talk) 14:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove No progress, issues not addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It could do with a copy-edit, but I think that the prose per se is not bad enough to defrock the article. Admittedly, it was a cursory look. Here are examples of little problems:
- What's "Fall of 1999"? Breaches MoS on two counts. Fall = autumn = March–May, for me.
- "attempts at developing"—awkward. Try "attempts to develop".
- "KDEPrint's main components", and other similar awkward uses of the apostrophe. Tony 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. The article has very few citations.--Yannismarou 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hold on this one for maybe three days? This is just the type of article that can be sourced with weblinks, and it's not in terrible shape now. Marskell 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could hold but no one seems to be working on the article. Are you willing to work on the article Tim? Joelito (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was, but my time has proved limited and I've used it for the Polish-Soviet War. This can go, if that's the consensus. Marskell 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]