Wikipedia:Peer review/DOS/archive1

DOS edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm looking for outside opinions to its:

Tone not too techy; where it is techy people have tried to include hatnotes to the broader subject
Readability, and if changes in the sections would be beneficial
If it seems to be sourced sufficiently

Additionally, I'm working toward good article status, so any input on what it's lacking would be great.

Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead does not even mention that DOS stands for Disk Operating System. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - Windows ME (one example) is in the lead only. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
Article needs more references, for example the 1st and 5th paragraphs in History. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
Article needs cleaned up - the lead has parentheses problems and there are many short paragraphs that could be combined or possibly expanded.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:JeremyMcCracken

I need to point out what you said about the lead. DOS does not stand for Disk Operating System; the oldest origin of MS-DOS (the original) was called Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS), which was carried over. I thought it had been backronymed, but couldn't actually find a source saying that it had, so I'd removed that from the lead. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs found me a source for that; thanks. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

This is too short. DOS was the world's most-used operating system during the 1980s, with hundreds of variants running on almost every personal computer in existance at the time. The History section neglects major points, and is not up-to-date.
There should be a section on the software available for DOS, discussing the availability and prices in comparison with other desktop operating systems.
Consider adding a section on the limitations of DOS (and criticisms?)
Why isn't there a section about the architecture, kernel, etc of disk operating systems?
Please use books instead of websites for your references. There are plenty of good published books on DOS, and some are available on Google Books (with free previews):
- http://books.google.com/books?id=vrsSflB2o5sC - Click the Preview tab to read it.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the suggestions. This is why I had a peer review- the limitations section hadn't occurred to me. I just added it. I'm not sure what's missing from the history; you might take a look at the timeline of Comparison of x86 DOS operating systems. The history section, as well as that of MS-DOS, were an intertwined mess, and some of the more version-specific points were put there. Per the software for DOS, I didn't think there was any, but I'm not sure how to source something like that anyway (though I'd be curious to know what is out there). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Every operating system has software (otherwise, it serves little purpose to the user). As I said, buy a few books on DOS or look in the library and use them as sources. Your other option is to use newspaper archives (see www.time.com and www.nyt.com for their extensive online archives) and also Thomson Gale Infotrac, which you should have access to through your state/county library system. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there was anything new available, though I think I'll dig around for older programs that have articles, and make mention of some of them. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean new software. I think its important to cover how DOS was partly so successful because there was always a lot of software available of it. It was often something IBM boasted about in their ads. At the time, other operating systems couldn't match the amount of software and games out there for DOS. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Tracking down article for notable DOS software and including them would definitely be a benefit. Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect are coming to mind, as well as ports of Wordstar and Visicalc. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software section done. I know very little about kernel design (other than that DOS systems have so far been monolithic); if you know more than I do please add. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]