Wikipedia:Peer review/Java (programming language)/archive1

Java (programming language)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Once featured, now only B-class. No review since open sourcing of Java (2007). General review needed.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this is not FA or even GA in its current state. It is an interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, much more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would look at the FAR closely and make sure all of the points raised there are addressed.
 * Article lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example Applet, Servlet and Criticisms do not seem to be in the lead.
 * Biggest problem I see with the article is that it has very few references, especially for its length. For example the last three paragraphs of Criticism have no (ZERO) refs. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Refs that are there often are inomplete and need more information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.
 * Article is very list-y, this should be converted to prose where possible. Some lists, like the five goals, are OK, but this is too many
 * Article seems to have too many See also links and the External links section does look like a link farm.
 * The programs (code) do not seem to have any refs - how is that not original research?
 * While I think a few examples of code are useful, the article seems to be more like a programming manual (how to). See WP:NOT
 * A model article is often useful for ideas - there are several possible FA models at Featured_articles