Wikipedia:Featured article review/Emacs/archive1

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at FePe, Computing, Computer science, Linux, and C++. Sandy 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1:a, I dont feel the prose is compelling any more in this article, you get the feeling that it isn't the same author in the whole article (style changes all the time), also there is two sections titled License/Licensing, seems to much ambigious. 1:c, Some data added the last two years seems to lack source, the lack of inline sources aint a criteria, but this article could need some more. 1:d, The article are using subjective words like "powerful" etc. 2:a, the lead contains data, not refered more later in the article. 3, The only image is a screenshot at the top of the article, featuring a overview of the software in question, I would like to see more images featuring parts of the interface in action. AzaToth 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. All of the above, the article is undercited, and a red-link in See also (?). Sandy 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The red link came from someone using {{prod}} and not dealing with the links to the deleted article. I've dealt with it now. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When skimming this, didn't notice much in problems with the prose, although the combined authors seem to have a lot of personal experience with emacs, they have a lot of details down well. Yeah, the license/licensing should at least be moved together, probably combined. Overall though, the lack of sources seems like the biggest problem. Although the information is almost unquestionably right, it's not sourced, and I suspect one would find it hard to find quality sources for much of this information, since it's often a debated matter of opinion, for example, "Emacs is one of the most powerful and versatile text editors in existence." True, but not really source-able.

For screenshots, there's not much to see in Emacs, but I suppose a few more could be added; I think the sourcing is the most needed though. Prof Olson|talk 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), POV (1d), LEAD (2), and images (3). Marskell 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Diff since nom. The prose is not compelling, and reads at times like an elementary instruction manuel. ("Emacs supports the editing of text written in many human languages. There is support for many alphabets, scripts, writing systems, and cultural conventions. Emacs provides spell checking for many languages by calling external programs such as ispell.") There is a lack of citations (examples: "The downside to Emacs' Lisp-based design is a performance overhead resulting from loading and interpreting the Lisp code. On the systems in which Emacs was first implemented, Emacs was often noticeably slower than rival text editors." "However, modern computers are fast enough that Emacs is seldom felt to be slow. In fact, Emacs starts up more quickly than most modern word processors.") Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]