Talk:ReactOS/GA2

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman  talk 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Fail checklist
First, I'll see if this article passes the "quick fail" criteria: Since it meets none of the above criteria, on to the in-depth review! Airplaneman talk 04:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

GA Checklist

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Additional comments

 * For one thing, many of the sources are blog entries. I noticed that at least refs 36 (Kerner), 31 (Alksnis), 33 (Blankenhorn), 16 (Sinovsky) are. Offliner (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in "Current and future development" is sourced to this: . This is a self-published source. Additionally, I was not able to find the cited info. Offliner (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since source is unsuitable, I have rewritten the comment to just say that ReactOS uses MinGW and contributes to its development. This uses Ionescu's Waterloo presentation as its citation. --LoneRifle (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good solution. But why did you change this ReactOS ref to a mailing list citation? A mailing list post is probably even more unreliable. In general I think the best way is to just remove info for which there is no reliable third-party source. The lack of coverage means that the info isn't notable for our purposes anyway. Offliner (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for the quick response. My main motivation behind the change is that the newsletter is hosted on the ReactOS website, where its content can be changed at the discretion of the webmaster, while the mailing-list entry can only be submitted once and cannot be retracted. I'm not sure if information is indeed unnotable, since the comment explains that there is indeed an effort to experiment with using more of Wine's codebase in ReactOS, thus more comprehensively answering the question regarding the use of Wine code or lack thereof in the project. --LoneRifle (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Arwinss line removed on request from the development team. --LoneRifle (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I noted at least 7 ReactOS sources. There are self-published and not acceptable. I believe using them might be ok if the developer was a major company (and thus have a certain standard in its publications), but this is not the case here. Offliner (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll keep this in mind as I filter through the sources for myself; I know this was a problem last time and will, within a few days, list refs that aren't verifiable. Airplaneman talk 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All ros-dev mailing list entries converted to cite from MARC. The two ReactOS newsletters which were used as citations for PowerPC and a lack of dev talent have been removed as they have been re-inspected and deemed unnecessary. The 3 2 remaining self-published entries that remain are the source to syscall.S, which contains the BadStack function that was in the centre of the reverse engineering dispute in 2006, Steven Edward's news article announcing that all developers will sign the "clean-room only" agreement,  and the Betov clarification/resolution forum thread . Would like to be advised if syscall.S is necessary. Am worried in particular about the Betov thread, since this is in a forum, where the moderators have full control over its content. Should I perhaps use archive.org? Thanks. --LoneRifle (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the reference to the Betov clarification forum thread, in light of further clarity on the matter. Specifically, the Betov reference and other sources, such as the ros-dev mailing list and Betov clarification forum thread, note that ReactOS has said that the source of the disputed files come from Sanos. --LoneRifle (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to seek clarification with regard to Reliable sources --LoneRifle (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded lately. The article is much cleaner now, and I think it's fit for GA status. I'll have one last look over it and decide by tomorrow. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as I said above is cleaner. I'll pass it, as a GA doesn't have to be perfect - just close to it. In its life as a good article, keep watching for violations of WP:RS, and you'll be good to go! Airplaneman  talk 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer's additions

 * I've added a mention about it being open source in the lead. Airplaneman  talk 04:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the dashes using a script (very minor). Airplaneman  talk 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited it from top to bottom: prose and coverage look good! Definitely striving for neutral tone as well. Airplaneman  talk 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Links
A checklink brings to light a few links in need of repair. Please repair these links. Airplaneman talk 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed links where I can. Not sure what to do with the osnews ones - they're being reported as 302 Found, analysis reporting "Changes sub-domain and redirect perserves id number" but the info heading indicates 200 OK. --LoneRifle (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Airplaneman talk 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)