Talk:Windows 2.0/GA1

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

Reviewer: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary comments
There are no inline citations in the lead (even though several statements could use citations for verification), which I find hard to make this a pass currently.

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There are several problems with reliable sources. There are several sources that are borderline reliable (or leaning towards unreliable) etc, and the most cited source cites Wikipedia (on History of Microsoft Windows when its section on Windows 2.0 is unreferenced entirely) and a couple of primary/non-reliable sources.
 * How is Chip unreliable? I'll look to replace other sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Vacant0, Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that.. But maybe because it does not have an attributable author? But keeping it should be fine from a second glance. 0x Deadbeef 10:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've amended the sources. Vacant0 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How is Chip unreliable? I'll look to replace other sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Vacant0, Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that.. But maybe because it does not have an attributable author? But keeping it should be fine from a second glance. 0x Deadbeef 10:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've amended the sources. Vacant0 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Many sentences are not supported directly by, or lack inline citations for them, such as It introduced a protected mode kernel, above which the GUI and applications run as a virtual 8086 mode task., Neither of these versions worked with DOS memory managers like CEMM or QEMM or with DOS extenders, which have their own extended memory management and run in protected mode as well., and Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright and that Windows 2.0 violated this copyright by having the same icons..
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * It looks like some sections go into unnecessary technical detail that makes it hard to understand the developmental progress Windows 2.0x had when compared to its predecessors and successors.
 * ✅ I've re-wrote and moved a couple of sentences, I think that it reads a little bit better now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like some sections go into unnecessary technical detail that makes it hard to understand the developmental progress Windows 2.0x had when compared to its predecessors and successors.
 * ✅ I've re-wrote and moved a couple of sentences, I think that it reads a little bit better now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I went through your comments and amended everything, I hope it's good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice, because this is my first review, I am going to ask for second opinion on the reliability of the sources and request assistance on offline sources used. 0x Deadbeef 05:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem. Vacant0 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

My 2c on your second-opinion request on sourcing: This article's sources are primarily trade magazines; I think those are generally reliable for this sort of topic. A few sources are from reference material from companies like IBM and Microsoft; these are reliable for statements of fact but not for statements of opinion about their own products. Books from commercial (not print-on-demand) publishers like The Windows 3.1 Bible (Peachpit) or Special edition using Microsoft Windows XP home (Que) are also fine. The first source I am dubious about is [26] History of Microsoft from Chip.eu, a software download site rather than a magazine, with rather poor writing and no evidence of any kind of careful editorial review process. I also do not see why [29] SBP Romania should be considered reliable. [40] The Free Dictionary appears to be a content aggregator that does not clearly identify where its content comes from. And [50] Apple Computer v. Microsoft Corp. is a primary legal document that is not a good source for interpretations of what the legal rulings in the case meant, and whether they represented broad principles or legal technicalities; secondary sourcing on the case would be much better. So I think the four sources [26] [29] [40] [50] should be replaced if possible; the rest look ok to me. Offline is not problematic in general but some spot-checking of available-online sources would be a good idea to check that the sources say what they are claimed to say and that wording has not been inappropriately copied from them; I didn't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've replaced those four sources and added new ones. Vacant0 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just did a spot check for online sources. [2] seems to be unreliable as a blog, [11], [38] and [44] looks good, [47] is unreliable as well. Please check if other sources are available as replacement. Thank you! 0x Deadbeef 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! Vacant0 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I read the article again. The content looks alright but I found that although the developer support increased substantially was not supported by the inline citation. Should be good to go after this. 0x Deadbeef 12:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was supported by the SBP Romania source. I wasn't able to find a replacement, so I've removed it. Vacant0 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. A potential WP:DYK would be: "..that Windows 2.0 is the last version of Windows that ran solely on floppy disks?" if you are interested in that as well. A further suggestion for improvement would be to try to elaborate on some technical terms, but given that those are appropriately linked I do not see that as a problem. Thank you for working on this and congrats! 0x Deadbeef 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate it for DYK asap. Thank you for reviewing this article. Vacant0 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)