Talk:DragonFly BSD/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this article. I usually copy edit as I go but feel free to revert anything I do. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * "Due to ongoing conflicts with other FreeBSD developers over the implementation of his ideas,[4] and other reasons, his ability to directly change the FreeBSD code was eventually revoked." - "and other reasons" sounds a little vague - can you be more specific, or else reword it?
 * e.g. Due to ongoing conflicts with other FreeBSD developers over the implementation of his ideas, his ability to directly change the FreeBSD code was eventually revoked.

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC) This is a nice little article. Just one more thing: MathewTownsend (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeated Matthew Dillon in the article, as everything in the lede must be in the body of the article.
 * is "useland" a regular term, or is it slang or jargon? Do you really mean userspace?
 * I'm having difficulty accessing the sources, as they time out e.g. www.kerneltrap.org/node/14116 - if you get the chance you could archive them at WebCite.
 * There is a lot of "as well as" and "such as" - I'll try to reduce them.
 * how does the link to subsystem help? - it's not computer specific.
 * I came here when these "other reasons" were already in place. I hoped to come across them, but then just forgot them at all. Now removed them.
 * "Userland" is a term that denotes the processes that run outside the kernel. There probably is some more formal term, but this word is the most common naming.
 * I'll walk through the sources with "archive.org" – all of them are archived there, I believe. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlinked subsystem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "is arguably the key" - is this a weasel word?
 * Removed the sentence: it didn't tell anything new anyway.
 * continue
 * SMP - is this Symmetric multiprocessing or Symmetric Multiprocessor System, or what? - whenever possible, spell out the abbreviation on first mention (for people like me).
 * Hard to say: these article share the same topic. I changed "SMP systems" to "Symmetric Multiprocessor Systems", next entry of "SMP" to "symmetric multiprocessing (SMP)" and unlinked the third one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * reply
 * Both "Protecting shared resources" (unreferenced section) and "Memory management" (under referenced section) need citations.
 * I removed the most part of "Memory management" and merged the rest into "Protecting shared resources". The unreferenced material there was a bit misrepresenting the situation, as the difference between DragonFly's approach and the rest of Unix-like system is not that substantial. All the SFBUF/MSFBUF stuff was interesting for OS developers back then, but wasn't and still isn't of any interest to the rest of us, and as such didn't receive any coverage.
 * I added a couple of references to the "Protecting shared resources". Actually, the most part of the section is the explanation of SMP concept with only small DF-specific bits being the statements likely to be challenged, and these statements are covered in the references I linked. Unfortunately I couldn't find secondary sources on the topic, and I don't think there are such, as the whole thing is of technical detail that don't normally get past code and mailing lists, as it doesn't interfere with end users. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratuations! Nice work. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratuations! Nice work. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratuations! Nice work. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)