Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA1

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to review this. Upon a first pass I think it needs a little work to hit GA status, I will leave some comments below and go through the prose later:


 * The lead is very short of an article of this length and does not actually cover very much of the actual article content. See WP:LEAD
 * Similarly, material exists in the lead that does not appear to be covered in the article. So that all needs some work (some sort of introductory section could use most of the lead, and let you rewrite the whole lead).
 * I don't see any reaction/reviews or response, merely technical details. Although fairly new, such coverage should exist - e.g. this example.

I'll place the article on hold for the time being --Errant (chat!) 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All understood, except the part "some sort of introductory section could use most of the lead, and let you rewrite the whole lead)".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just meant that the material currently in the lead should be in the history section and all of that then summarised as part of a new lead. Make more sense? --Errant (chat!) 10:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A more detailed review of the current prose:
 * History
 * build; does this word need explaining on first use (not sure)
 * was reportedly leaked to file-sharing sites in ; is WinRumours a RS? Also, that source is the one doing reporting - so "reportedly" seems to be editorialising.
 * window style; this could be confusing (window vs. Windows). If I understand it right this relate to Metro, so perhaps bring the Metro comments up to here, explain what it is, and say that this was the first look
 * Most of the first paragraph appears to lack any source!
 * goes to a 404 page, and is probably not a reliable source anyway.
 * Naming section is rather short - it also seems like the original name should be noted at the beginning of the history section.
 * Features
 * Windows Server 2012 includes a number of new features or feature changes.; what purpose does this sentence serve? Can it be expanded on (perhaps with critical coverage to the overall feature-set).
 * Server Manager has been redesigned with an emphasis on easing management of multiple servers.; what is server manager? Also, sounds like marketing release :D consider rewording.
 * ''Server Core mode'; details of this mode??
 * There is also command auto-completion; sentence fragment, consider revising.

More later. I hope I am not being too harsh here - I'd say the core of the article is there, it just needs finesse. --Errant (chat!) 10:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "build" probably does not need explanation, beyond perhaps saying that it is a development revision of the software. Probably we can delete WinRumours references, as well as Winunleaked. I don't believe "There is also command auto-completion" is a fragment, but I should try to revise that too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fragment because the subject is at best vague (sentence clauses require a subject and a verb). In this case what is the fragment referring to? Windows 8, Metro UI or Command Powershell - it could reasonably all of them (though I think you mean the former on careful consideration). --Errant (chat!) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

-
 * Note: Hi. There is an active dispute in the article. This dispute has been active since 12 October 2012. See this talk page and this DRN case and finally article's talk page (in chronological order). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there likely to be any movement on this in the nest couple of days? Usually nominators are given 7 days to address GAR notes, but I like ot leave it a little longer. However, after 20 days there seems to have been no significant work on the points above so I am inclined to archive this. --Errant (chat!) 09:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, ErrantX. For the time being, the issue seems resolved. We achieved a consensus, albeit a weak one. I inserted an RfC and sent notices to WikiProject Microsoft but received no input through those channels. So, I went ahead and implemented the consensus, which for the time being seems uncontested. That is the situation as I see it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about what colour is picked, that is "bike shedding" and not really relevant to this GAR :) --Errant (chat!) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is little doubt that this issue is not a GAC#5 barrier. There isn't really an edit war going on and although there is a content dispute, there isn't day to day changes. So, yes, I concur with you. But then, why did you ask this question in the first place? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm, yeh. I meant it as a general question on this GAR. --Errant (chat!) 15:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given all the edits due to the above issue, I'm not sure if the issues have been addressed. In either case, this article should now be passed or failed based on if the reviewer is satisfied. Wizardman  00:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)