Wikipedia:Featured article review/OpenBSD/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 kept by Dana boomer 20:43, 29 May 2010 [1].

OpenBSD edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProjects. Author long inactive.

This article lacks citations in many paragraphs and fails 1c YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I whacked out a little bit of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox shows three dead ELs. Surprisingly, I don't see any sources that seem unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this mostly meets 1c. Can you give examples of some relevant literature not covered, or some bits that lack citations but should not? Most assertions I can see are attributed with a cite. The only places I can spot where cites are a bit thin is the last section and most of the stuff in there is factual. We can add a bunch of links to openbsd.org, or the manual, but what is the point in that? NicM (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I've added a bunch more cites, only one thing I can't really find a reference to right now (the change of logo, it just happened, even the CVS logs are helpful). Anyway, I'm away for a week but if you say what else you think is missing I'll have a look when I get back. NicM (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Referencing level looks good; a few of the citations need to be formatted to be consistent with the others (accessdates and publisher names needed). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trivial mechanical problems only, I'll take care of as soon as I am not so busy, if nobody else does (which I bet they won't). NicM (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment In the first paragraph of the section "Open source and Open documentation", there is the quotation "runs counter to the open source philisophy". Is "philisophy" a typo in the Wikipedia article, or is it in the original text? If in the original text, I suggest either flagging it with sic or quietly amending it. (I see no reason to draw the readers' attention to another example of the poor spelling endemic in online communications.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It wasn't in the source.--Oneiros (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fully cited now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there better sources than a giant stack of mailing list posts? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Public OpenBSD discussion takes place largely on mailing lists, that is where comments from developers are found. The article uses news reports and interviews where possible but in some cases these aren't available. NicM (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Linking: I unlinked "documentation" (if there's a section link possible to a more specific target, please do that), and "Alberta", which is a more general "chain-link" from Calgary. I fixed a few MoS issues. The writing is not of thrilling quality, but it's OK. I think it probably passes Cr. 1a. Tony (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ Looking through the article, I saw sections of it unreferenced. A perfect example would be the third paragraph in the "Distribution and marketing" section. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an unreferenced paragraph, not an unreferenced section... But yeah, a cite is needed for that para. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you gave an example, but I don't think that one is sufficient to delist. We need a cite for at least one part of that paragraph but there isn't really one readily available. We may need to change it around, I intend to have another look for a cite and fix it one way or another soon. Any others? NicM (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I've trimmed that paragraph down a bit, relegated one sentence to a note, and added some links to the OpenBSD site. NicM (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
To answer your question, NicM, yes. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph and the last sentence in the last paragraph of "History and popularity."

The last sentences in the first and third paragraph of "Open source and open documentation."

And the last sentence in the "Licensing" section. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two of these were referenced already, but the references were also used on a prior or subsequent sentence, I've duplicated them. Also added a reference to the source tree and man pages for the last. NicM (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The article looks improved. Changing to Keep. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "See also" section looks problematic; in a featured article, ideally, most links to relevant information are incorporated in the body of the article-- if not, the article might not be comprehensive. Also, please review MOS on those one-line quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand this, six of the see also items are obviously comparisons or generic pages (BSD vs GPL licensing/security focused operating system) so they can just be dropped if necessary. That leaves only four. Of those, BSD authentication and the KAME project are not significant enough to mention in the article IMO, they could just be dropped too although I don't see the harm in leaving them. Hackathon could be worked in somewhere probably, not sure about POSSE but it probably could be too. A big issue during the original FA was the length of the article, so rather than try to be comprehensive we cut out a lot of fringe material to focus on the most major and most illustrative events in OpenBSD's history. NicM (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delist, still a bit of problematic referencing issues throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed all the ones you marked, most of which were either trivial or part of a reference already linked. NicM (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Stricken delist, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - For the purposes of wp, media licensed as "the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for positive promotional uses" is considered non-free. This article has non free content in abundance without justification, and fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the logo? I think that's justified, it's the logo. 74.13.28.209 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot of course read Fasach's mind, but I think he is referring to File:Openbsd23cover.gif, which is considered non-free since copyright is retained and conditions are put on how it can be used. So, it needs to follow all of the fair-use guidelines, including providing a comprehensive WP:Fair use rationale. The same applies to File:Paintedpuffy1000X907px.png. You already have "puffy" represented in File:Openbsd2.svg, which, although fair-use logos have been established as OK when used as the lead image for the company they represent, still needs a fair use rationale. I hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the painted puffy and cover. I don't know anything about image copyright, anyone else want to help out with the others? NicM (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Can you please be more specific rather than making us guess? There are eight images in the article, which ones do we need to look at? NicM (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.