Wikipedia:Peer review/Ubuntu/archive1

Ubuntu (operating system)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see how I can best improve it to FA status.

Thanks, ff m 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will look at this from an FA standpoint - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, more needs to be done to approach FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

A model article is often useful for ideas, style, structure, etc. I note that OpenBSD, Mozilla Firefox, and Windows 2000 are all FAs and may be useful models.
I must also say that I am not a computer person, and that after having read this article, I still have only a vague notion of what Ubuntu does and how it is different from a Mac or Windows OS.
The lead needs to be rewritten as a summary of the rest of the article - my rule of thumb is every header should be mentioned in some way. It should also not contain anything not repeated in the main article text - so the meanings of the word Ubuntu should go into the body, for example. See WP:LEAD
As written the article has many short sections (one or two sentences only) and is also fairly list-y in places. Both of these make it choppy to read and interrupt the flow. Short paragraphs and sections should be combined with others, or possibly expanded.
Avoid needless repetition - for example the ShipIt section already says Currently, only Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are offered for free via ShipIt. Other variants, including the popular Xubuntu are not available through this service.[91] (I would argue the second sentence here is not needed - the first sentence says it all). Then in the very next section (Variants) we find Of the official variants, Kubuntu[93] and Edubuntu[94] are also available free of charge via mail order through Ubuntu's ShipIt service, but Xubuntu is not available.[95] this is totally not needed.
Avoid jargon and provide context for the reader. I do not know what Debian is or does, for example. Wikilinks are useful and nice, but a sentence or two explaining important concepts is even better.
References need more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The cite templates such as {{cite web}} may be useful here. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Another worry for FAC is that the article seems to rely an awful lot on Ubuntu as a source - wherever possible use independent third-party sources that meet WP:RS.
In the same vein, expand this It has been favorably reviewed in online and print publications.[108][109][110] and quote what the reviewers said.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is particullary different from those other OSs mentioned, this one is just another OS. ff m 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch replies: as noted I am not a computer person.
- Since it is in the article title, I do nto think it would be horribly wrong to make the first sentence something like Ubuntu (IPA: [uːˈbuːntuː] in English,[3] [ùbúntú] in Zulu) is a Linux distribution (operating system) for desktops, laptops, and servers. I know what an operating system is. I had to click on the link to see what a Linux distribtuion is. This provides context for the reader - see WP:PCR - and follows WP:LEAD in making the lead as accessible as possible.
- As for sources being mostly from Ubuntu, please see Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. It is always better to get an independent third-party take on something if it is available. Imagine writing an article on the Soviet Union using only Pravda. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]