Talk:Ubuntu/GA1

GA Review for Ubuntu
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ubuntu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

What is a good article?
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

L, 1-14
 * 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.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Notes/Citations

 * Separate Notes from Citations (see 1 and 2)
 * Citations which aren't formatted properly:
 * 11*, 14*, 16-7*, 19-20*, 27*, 31*, 34-5*, 40*, 42* 50*, 55*, 64*, 74-77*, 79-80*, 82*, 88** (YouTube - not a reliable source), 92, 98, 99, 100-111, 116-117, 121-122
 * Starred numbers fixed, double-starred removed. Oh, and the numbers for the latter are now 91, 97, 98, 99-110, 115-116, 120-121 ff m  13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, forums are not reliable sources.
 * Fixed. ff m  12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITE for more details.

Images

 * Ubuntu logo needs a FURG for every page that it is located on.
 * ✅ Fixed. ff m  12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Captions don't need periods, unless they are complete sentences.
 * ✅ Fixed. ff m  12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

 * Where's this section, per NPOV?
 * I've noted that some featured articles lack a criticism section. ff m  00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are generally considered to by stylistically poor (even if in some cases they are unavoidable) it is best if the criticism can be spread through the article.Genisock2 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. In fact you might want to reread NPOV, as it actually says the opposite of that. --Rory096 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, the indent seems ambiguous to me. Was that intended for the reviewer? ff m  01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah. --Rory096 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he meant it for me. However, he's wrong in his assumption.  miranda   01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing this section to neutral. Found some criticisms.  miranda   08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Browsing

 * You need to eliminate the Multilingual and Installer section and merge the sentences to the Features section.
 * /✅ I think Miranda fixed this for us. --Falcorian (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Citation is needed for this: The purpose of the foundation is to ensure the support and development for all future versions of Ubuntu, but as of 2006, the foundation remains dormant.[citation needed]   miranda   04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed, can find no source for 'but as of 2006, the foundation remains dormant.', other part is cited. --Falcorian (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit (part one)
general comments derived or visa-vera
 * avoid "it" - this made me confused about whether or not Debian was Ubuntu
 * if a sentence has two subjects (like X+Y, and X+Y) put a comma (X+Y, and Y) - unnecessary

Lead

 * sponsored by ____, which is owned
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ed. Ubuntu is an ... - not a compound sentence, remove comma
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The newest official subproject is JeOS - should be Ubuntu JeOS, then Pronounced JeOS
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should spell out years for consistency in this section.
 * Like "Two thousand and one", you mean? Where does the WP:MOS require that? ff m  15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be appropriate according to WP:SEASON. Sunderland06  (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK if I converted all of them to use ISO Date? ff m  16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, like three years versus 3 years.  miranda   16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about 18 months? Can that be left as-is? ff m  16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 18 months is cool. See DATE if you have any more questions regarding this topic.  miranda   05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

History and Development Process

 * Ubuntu's first release was on October 20, 2004, which began by making a temporary fork of the Debian project. - reword "Ubuntu was formed from a temporary fork of the Debian project when being released..."
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The font is distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and use with logos derived from the Ubuntu logo is encouraged.[20]
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge 3rd "paragraph" with 2nd.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ubuntu cooperates with Debian—to some extent pushing changes back to Debian,[15] although there has been criticism that this is not happening enough[21]. and Debian and Ubuntu packages are not necessarily binary compatible with each other.[22]
 * split up this sentence.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although there has been criticism concerning lack of occurrence, Ubuntu - should read like that
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * within Debian itself.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Ian Murdock, the founder of Debian, criticized Ubuntu for package incompatibilities between its packages and those of in contrast to Debian's, saying that Ubuntu had diverged too far from Debian Sarge to remain compatible.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plans for a branch codenamed Grumpy Groundhog. It will be a The development will be permanently unstable development and testing branch, , and the source will be pulled the source directly out of the revision control of the various programs and applications that which are shipped as part of the Ubuntu package''.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Grumpy Groundhog has not been made available to the public yet. - redundant take out
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ubuntu 8.04, released on April 24, 2008, is the current Long Term Support (LTS) release. Canonical is committed to releasing a new LTS version every two years. - merge with third paragraph
 * ❌ I Disagree. The Third paragraph is about .debs and how both Debian and Ubuntu use them. I'm merging the third paragraph with the forth as they both deal with Debian and Ubuntu. The above paragraph will be merged in elsewhere. --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * correct fact tags
 * ✅ All fact tags removed. Either cited, or content deleted. --Falcorian (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vendor Support

 * Dell and Tesco have provided this option since 2007, while System 76 has done so since its inception in November 2005
 * its = System 76 or Ubuntu's?
 * ✅ It's System 76's inception. --Falcorian (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Release History

 * No external links. The citations should be suffixed if you want to cite the version number.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Features should be merged into the overall paragraph
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * HH - + period to last sentence.
 * Pardon me, what does that mean? ff m  15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ubuntu 5.04's support ended on October 31, 2006[54].  miranda   18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I recommend using full words? This is the same issue you keep raising with "it". HH is not clear (Hardy or Hoary for example) without the further explanation you added, and the - + is confusing regardless. --Falcorian (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My message was for someone to add a period to the sentence.  miranda   20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 7.06 and 7.10 have dates which aren't according to MOS - see DATES
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Features

 * needs more sources
 * why is human quoted?
 * ✅ No reason for it to be. --Falcorian (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * internet does not need to be capitalized Only when name of software (Internet Explorer)
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * chess is not capitalized
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Desktop CD

 * the introductory paragraph needs to be reworded
 * please avoid "it"
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Install

 * don't capitalize "alternate" or "install"
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to remove list and prose it. --Falcorian (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Also merged in server/network. --Falcorian (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Network install

 * decapitalize network install
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * don't use "it"
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Customized installable live CD

 * needs to be merged with main paragraph (features)
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * External links need to be taken out. If included, make them in citations.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Package classification and support

 * don't ital. "components", "universe", "multiverse", and "Ubuntu Backports"
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * unquote "Free" as in "free" software
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Avoid quote dumping and summarize:
 * There is one exception for Main however; it "also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts (which are used by free components of Main) that cannot be modified without permission from their authors" so long as their "redistribution is unencumbered."[45]
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-free software is usually unsupported (Multiverse), but some exceptions (Restricted) are made for very important non-free software, such as non-free device drivers, without which users might be prevented from running Ubuntu on their system, particularly binary-only graphics card drivers.
 * Wordy.
 * ✅ Split and reworded. --Falcorian (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Where? --Falcorian (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Third sentence in paragraph need to merge with second
 * It is intended that Main and Restricted should contain all software needed for a general-use Linux system. Alternative programs for the same tasks and programs for specialized applications are placed in Universe and Multiverse. needs to be merged with the paragraph above.  miranda   07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * take out external link in fourth paragraph
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Availability of proprietary software

 * Ubuntu-certified Certified with ubuntu
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The following are some examples:
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "multiverse", "ubuntu-restricted-extras" - no ital.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * List of features doesn't need to be in list form.
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ShipIt

 * This release had less development time due to it being released immediately after an LTS release (6.06), so 6.06 was offered in its place in the beginning.
 * Run-on. Needs sources.
 * ✅ I was unable to source reliably, so I removed the mention of 6.10. --Falcorian (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After a request for CDs is made at the site and approved,
 * take out external link
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Variants

 * There are several variants besides Ubuntu, both official and unofficial.
 * Several official and unofficial variants besides Ubuntu exist?
 * ✅ --Falcorian (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

System Requirements

 * Please put this in prose form.
 * ✅ I left the table as it is the most efficient way to convey the information still. --Falcorian (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

 * I had to copyedit this section.
 * Put criticism in this section, because I know criticism exists.
 * / ✅ I've added in one source, but I haven't found any more relavant sources that pass WP:RS. A few complain about features from old releases that have since been fixed... And I'm not sure if/how to include those. Putting them in seems to give undo weight to an outdated opinion, while refuting them almost certainly involves WP:OR. --Falcorian (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added criticism from four separate reviews of the newest edition from reliable sources. Although it's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel at this point... --Falcorian (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision
On hold for 1 week.  miranda   06:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have decided to give this article an extra two two extra days for the nominees to put a criticism section and to fix some of the still not addressed issues above.  miranda   05:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fix Cite #93 #94 and fix prose in Package classification and support. Will check tomorrow, I promise! :-)  miranda   01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With some mistakes regarding copyediting and prose, I decided to promote this article to GA status. If you guys want to make this up to featured status, then I highly suggest taking this article to LOC.  miranda   04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help! I know it was a ton of work to read the article and offer so many suggestions! But in response to LOC... I think you mean LOCE? ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've listed it there. ff m  14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)