Talk:ReactOS/GA1

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

I will be happy to review this article. Diderot's  dreams  (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article right off because it is completely lacks reliable sourcing for GA under the verifiability and specific citations requirements. The article hasn't demonstrated its notability either, and I've placed a banner.

The article is based on the OS's website, a primary source. This varies in acceptability as a reliable source. For general, non-controversial information in an article it is an inferior but acceptable source. For establishing notability it is unacceptable. For a Good Article, it's use must be limited overall (reliable secondary sources must provide a substantial portion of the article's information), and it cannot be used where a specific citation is required, like for statistics or anything controversial.

So please add information from reliable secondary sources to satisfy the GA sourcing requirement and also to establish the article's notability. BTW, articles from computer magazines (online ones are fine, of course) would be the kind you would typically see for an article of this type. After doing that, and after carefully checking the article against all GA criteria and making any additions and adjustments you think are needed, I invite you to renominate the article.

I hope my explanation of the sourcing problem is clear. I'm happy to answer any questions. Either here or on my talk page. Best of luck with the article! Diderot's  dreams  (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, until the 0.5 version of ReactOS is released, which will be beta, feature complete and stable enough for general use, this article will not fully satisfy the general notability guideline or be suitable for good article status. Thereafter, however, you will be hearing more and more about ReactOS as it develops toward the 1.0 version for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about IBM-compatible computers and operating systems.  Credible secondary references will then be abundant.


 * Unfortunately, the banner you placed opens the possibility of this article being deleted over a technicality beforehand which is destructive to the good work other editors have invested in building this article. I wish you would redirect your busybody activities toward definitively irrelevant articles and away from the most important freeware project ever (that is under development).  --DavidWatersHC  —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Please see my comment here, made previous to yours above, which addresses notability and possible GA for the original and revised (and subsequently reversed) article versions.


 * I think you have misinterpreted by intentions. I was trying to help you keep the article while at the same time doing my job as an editor.  You see, the banner I added just says reliable sources need to be added to establish notability.  It is not a part of the deletion procedure.  If I wanted to see the article deleted, I would of nominated it for deletion, which can be done by anyone at any time without any warning at all.  Further, if you read my comment, you will see that I have been trying to see if the new sources in the revised version pass for notability, which I think they do.  I even suggested another.


 * But if the article really can't be made to pass notability now, then it doesn't belong here now. The article could be recreated later when it can.  It isn't "busybody" to point that out, nor would it be only a technicality, and I wouldn't help disguise the fact.    Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (July 2009)"


 * The wording of the banner explicitly presses the issue toward a merger or deletion if notability cannot be presently established. Since you have recently been convinced that sufficient notability probably can be established, I strongly prefer that you remove the banner (for the time being, at least) instead of leaving it in place since this could trigger a series of events ending in deletion.  Then, other editors would be forced to recreate this article at a later date when the ReactOS project is further developed and consequently, more notable.  --DavidWatersHC  —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Looking at the article now, I see two sources that are reliable secondary sources, in my opinion, and so notability is shown. I've removed the notability banner and replaced it with a more sources needed banner.


 * I don't think the notability banner is so strong, I would say soon rather than presently. And if the article did get nominated for deletion, you would still have a week to show notability.  Further, any article that is deleted can be "userfied" after the fact-- that is the entire article is recreated as a subpage of the user's space so you can work on it or whatever.  Any admin is happy to do it for any editor.  So the article's information isn't really gone and deletion is not the huge deal it seems to be.


 * Anyway, I really am rooting for you. We reviewers usually take articles that we have some knowledge of.  I have heard of ReactOS before.  In fact I have been to the website several times and looked around to see how it is coming along, awaiting a usable version.  Again, best of luck with the article.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)