Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After holding the review for more than a month, I was urged to close it, and the decision is fail. The article is reasonably good, but many issues, some listed below, remained unaddressed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This program (GIMP) does deserve a good WP article, thus comments will be numerous.
- Please decide which spelling do you use (UK/US) and spellcheck accordingly.
- DONE I think I have done so now, just used a spellchecker (Australian english should be (close to)/(the same as) UK). I am a programmer so I program in american and write in european, doesn't always work :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I'm not a good copyeditor, but I find something every time I look through this article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why gimp is used ? Shouldn't it be GIMP all through ?
- DONE and yes :)
"when it became an official part" - clarify "it". A general remark, the article does need style editing.
- DONE (it clarified)
Please explain the meaning of "3 months ago" in the infobox. Most software-related GAs don't have it. It seems uninformative and impractical to update this every month.
- DONE, removed: updating template was beyond my ability, exceptionally poorly formatted and had several nested templates.
There might be an inconsistency with GIMP release history on the first version, i.e. whether it was Feb. 1996 or 1995.
- DONE, January 2006 is the proper date. not a single article had it right :)
- A common phenomenon. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Second paragraph of "History" ("GIMP was created ..) needs wikilinking and referencing, especially for unpopular OS.
I would appreciate a comment on how many languages does GIMP support, e.g., in the infobox.
- DONE: now commented in detail, including number of translations, full translations and greter than 89% translated.
"colors including a using an eyedropper to choose an existing color, palettes with a limited and color choosers" needs rewriting.
"much like a ruby lith overlay whilst painting" has to be clarified.
- I think I can.
- Some popular GIMP features, such as unsharp masking and free rotation (arbitrary angle) need to be mentioned.
Subsection Wilber needs a reference.
- Ref. 6 is not friendly as it silently asks to handle tar.gz file only to get a readme.txt
- DONE, changed description to tarred and gzipped text.
- My point was avoiding tar.gz links at all - many readers can not handle those. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article cites only www links. "Google books" returns several hundred books mentioning GIMP and 13 dedicated to GIMP (with limited preview or full view). http://www.gimp.org/books/ also lists quite a number. I do suggest referencing (and maybe briefly reviewing) some of them, especially freely available ones.
"with the aim of throwing workhorse tools at GIMP" sounds either too funny or unclear.
- We need to add that there are vast libraries of GIMP plugins written both by GIMP developers and enthusiasts; the plugins can be downloaded and easily installed (like in winamp).Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- We need to add hardware support by GIMP (I guess drawing professionals use all kind of tablets).Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- "a program based on GIMP that is portable from one computer to another" - this needs a bit more of explanation of what kind of "portable".Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- DONE, Gnepets (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yet unclear. "that is likely to be installed on a USB stick" - do you mean "that can be .." ? "that keeps brushes and presets from one computer to the next. GIMP Portable is only portable between different windows computers." - It is unclear what is installed on USB, the full program or only some settings, which are picked up by the GIMP of another PC ? Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"these platforms existing applications use for the most part either" I don't understand this. Please simplify.Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- DONE, sentence removed and next paragraph merged in, I think that the next paragraph was simply a more expanded / better explanation. Gnepets (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
↑Jump back a section
- 1st paragraph of "User interface" says there was a window clutter problem but mostly in the old GIMP versions.. History to history, but the article body should focus on the current status. If the problem is solved then some parts should be deleted there; if the solution is only partial then this part needs more delicate reformulation. Ref. 36 is much too unreliable. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
↑Jump back a section
I saw you did a clean up using AWB, not sure how that works but paragraph tags are legitimate in 'MoS lists'. I assume that AWB just does auto cleanups, anyhow I thought it would be a good idea just to say it here, just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- AWB is a reliable semi-automatic tool, i.e. whatever he removes is unnecessary. I did not check in detail, but paragraph marks are in 99% cases superfluous on WP - thats why I removed them earlier. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Time & situation
Hi Materialscientist, I have been really busy lately and am starting to burn out a little, I am starting a comp sci degree later this month and I need to see family / relax as much as possible until the degree starts. I may or may not work more on this in the next week or fortnight, I hope you don't mind the inconvenience and I am grateful for your feedback.
I hope to get back to working on the article soon, maybe we can put the review on hold for a while? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am putting the review on hold and wishing you a nice vacation. This shouldn't be a problems with anyone. Even, in the worst case, if someone will push the timing, we can always restart the process and continue the review. Materialscientist (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)