Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows 2000/archive1

Windows 2000
Another of my focus articles. Have been working on this for quite a while now. I think its now a lot more comprehensive (see diff). I'm hoping that it's featured article quality! Also hope that this shows that I still believe in Wikipedia and can edit in good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said in peer review I think this article is great. However it is now unwieldy and too long for most causal readers. A more efficient version is needed. The larger sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles. This will allow readers to zoom to the level of detail they need and allow for more expansion of the spun off parts. The ==Architecture== and ==Common functionality== sections look ripe for this. Just give the word, and I will help. Until then I must object. --mav 02:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair enough... but my problem is that I have no idea how to sort this out. Luckily I've used extensive footnotes so this will help with sourcing stuff when placing into daughter articles, but I really need assistance on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Deal. I'll work on this in about 10 hours. --mav 11:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Argh. Too darn tired. Will try again tomorrow. --mav 00:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * S'ok :) I appreciate you doing this for me Mav. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Phase 1 done: Architecture of Windows 2000 created, good-sized summary in its place, and notes still work. Please check reference sections of both articles to make sure they are still accurate. Phase 2 will see a similar treatment for the ==Common functionality== section. --mav 04:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work :-) The size just dropped from about 59K to 47K when you did that! Now, if you drop out the notes section and the references section the size drops to 40K. I think this should be OK? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Physical size alone is just an indication that parts of the article may be more detailed than necessary. As is, the ==Common functionality== section looks like it falls in that category. It will take a couple hours, but I am sure I can transform that into its own article and leave a more than adequate summary at Windows 2000. That section already has its own small lead section. --mav 11:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've shifted a lot of the NTFS stuff into the NTFS article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)]
 * Much better. The ==Common functionality== section still needs to be spun off, but overall the article is much more streamlined. Support. --mav 14:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Just as thorough as the XP article which is already FA, and arguably a better candidate as there is less info on W2000. Good work to the editors of this piece, and nice to see TBSDY back on track. Harro5 03:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment We've only managed to say "kernal mode" five times in para 2 without defining or linking from it once. I appreciale the hybrid kernal and microkernal links, but I'm left wanting more info on kernal mode and user mode ... and wondering if P2 should plunge quite to recklessly into this arcane area. Nice article, though. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Have attempted to clarify kernel and user mode. Look OK? For more detailed info, it's best to refer to the article (one of which I'm afraid is a stub). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support this article is very in depth (if perhaps a bit too so) and as much as I hate Micro$oft, I have to say this is their best product to date. Good work tbsdy!  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Know thine enemy :-) Windows 2000 has lots of features! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Cool. JuntungWu 09:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support – I've also simplified the lead in. I do think the windows 2000 logo should be present on the page. I'd have to object for the moment. 1) The second paragraph goes into unnecessary technical detail regarding the user and kernel modes. Considering that there is a better written section below, I think it is redundant to have a slightly complex topic right at the start. 2) Unnecessary text on the NTFS 5 is detailed here. NTFS is only the file system used here. It would be advisable to just highlight the key features of NTFS instead of having such a high level of unnecessary detail here. 3) Disability support too has been around for sometime and is not new to Win2K. Highlight the new functions. = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 16:41, May 29, 2005 (UTC)  = Nichalp  ( Talk )= 09:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Two things: disability support is still a core part of Windows 2000, and so must be addressed. The section it is included in is not "new features of Windows 2000" but "Common features". Secondly, I agree about the lead section. As most of that section got moved to Architecture of Windows 2000 (a good thing!) then we should probably condense some of that bit of the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to improve the lead section, reducing the stuff on the architecture and coalescing it in to the first paragraph. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We now have numerous logos of Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautifully done. The things that can be improved are minor at best, and I like the general layout of it. Great job! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nichalp addressed most of my concerns with the article. But my remaining concerns are: 1) The author mode and user mode are not well explained for the MMC. 2) The Windows TCO section - this focuses on a Microsoft-funded report which set about quantifying something which varies considerably depending upon individual circumstances and is very difficult to measure. As such I don't think it is deserving of the last two paragraphs of what should be a factual article about Windows 2000. I would encourage this to be moved to another article such as "IDC Linux/Windows TCO Report" and then referneced from the main article or alternatively just removed altogether. Maybe a new section called "Windows 2000 Alternatives" or something that mentions Linux, BSD and other Unix-like systems such as Solaris and HP/UX as well as the TCO report might be just as informative and far more in tune with Wikipedia's NPOV? - Cedars 10:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * An alternatives section would be much more appropriate in the Microsoft Windows article. --mav 15:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mav about including alternatives in the much broader Microsoft Windows article (this article is too large as it is...). I was debating whether we even need the TCO report in the article, however I've kept it in. Perhaps that could do with spinning off into another article as there is also a TCO study done against Solaris. The MMC stuff should probably be moved into an article Microsoft Management Console. Will work on this later tonight. As always, Cedars advise is most appreciated :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-organized and referenced. The footnotes are particularly nice. :) Nathan Larson 04:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)