Wikipedia:Featured article review/Windows XP/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 08:54, 23 January 2008.

Review commentary

 * Message left at Josh the Nerd, Warren, WP Microsoft Windows and WP Computing by OSX. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)‎ Additional messages left at Ta bu shi da yu and SchmuckyTheCat Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been periodically viewing this page every-now-and-then waiting for it to be improved to FA quality, but this simply hasn't happened so I am listing this article for FAR. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please state which criteria you feel it does not meet or this FAR will be closed. Joelito (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria that the article does not meet are 1.c and 2.c, as the article has missing citations, and the article does not use a wide variety of sources with more than half of the references from Microsoft (biased). On top of this, the references don't contain all the parameters like the access date and author. The article also fails to meet criterion 1.a, as the article is not well written in some places as sentences have been substituted by bullet points. Just look at the Windows Vista article, which is a GA class article, yet is more worthy of featured article status than this one. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also no section about its history/development (1.b). Strangely, though, the lead talks about its history/development (2.a). Punctured Bicycle 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OSX, please follow the nomination instructions at the top of FAR and notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with Windows XP, and post a note back to here confirming notifications. Thank you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, done now though. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This "article" is absolutely the worse case of an advertisement I've ever seen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.60.172 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Now if you have something constructive to add, I for one would be happy to hear it. - 211.30.82.214 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c). Marskell (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove - Large parts have no inline citations (1c) and the lack of a development section means it is not comprehensive (2b). Also the sentence Windows XP is available in many languages - Could we be a bit more precise maybe.--Peter Andersen (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove Lacks sufficient inline citations. Existing citations are poorly formatted. Improper use of non-free media, the box art does not benefit the article. Jay32183 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing: Listish, stub sections, missing publishers in references (my absolute minimum), unsourced areas. It's also poorly rationalized (e.g. criticism should be woven throughout and sales/market share have a clear headline). Removing. Marskell (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.