Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP/archive1

Windows XP

There is no consensus: article is still a featured article.

I am concerned as to why this article has the featured article status. It has a terrible lead (starting with 'as of 2005'). The article is too long, there are too many small stub sections, and it is flooded with lists. Fair use images also don't have fair use rationales. I am also guessing there are more problems I haven't spotted. — Wackymacs 11:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, as per nomination. Trevdna 03:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nom. Jkelly 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, lead sections can be fixed, and all the images are screenshots! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All fair use images need rationales, even if they are screenshots and have special tags. They need rationales. There are also problems with the quality of the language. — Wackymacs 11:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, maybe the language needs fixing. However, screenshots don't need fair use rationale! It's implicit in the tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is that they are fair use because they are screenshots of Windows XP and/or its featureset, and as such can be fairly used in an article about Windows XP. (I thought this was obvious, but oh, well.) Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be renominated if

1. The lead section is fixed,
2. The short sections are lengthened or merged
3. The lists are rewritten, or put into seperate articles, and
4. Images recieve rationales. (There may be more that I have missed.)

As it stands, this article is definately NOT a Featured Article Trevdna 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through the FA criteria, then:

• "well written", OK, probably could be better
• "comprehensive" - it is
• "factually accurate" - noone has pointed out any inaccuracies
• "neutral" - IMO, it is neutral
• "stable" - hasn't had an edit war in ages, AFAICS
• Lead - could be more succinct
• Style manual: please highlight what specific parts need fixing, so I can assist
• Copyright of images: Suggest that you review Wikipedia:Fair use#Images.

You have some fair points, and some not so fair points. Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove, per nom. Ambi 14:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It was promoted in February 2005. Here is a diff showing what has changed since then. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nom Vb 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The lead sucks but writing a better one took me about two minutes. Article being too long - well, not something that makes it less FA. I know a lot about Windows, and this article still taught me a lot. All in all, I believe it to be FA material. Masterhomer 23:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove as per nominator; I don't mind a few lists in an article like this, but the other objections are sufficient grounds for removal. Tony 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) PS The lead still sucks.[reply]
• Keep. The article mainly needs someone to watch over it and co-ordinate editing, but otherwise, it's a fine one. I've dumped several of the lists, and most of the remaining ones are lists that ought to be lists, IMO. I've also heavily pruned the lead. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as edited. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to have plenty of interested editors to address problems as they come up on the talk page. No need for removal at the moment. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. I might as well vote as I nominated it and the lead still sucks. There are also still too many lists, and I seriously don't think this would be given FA status if it was re-entered as a featured article candidate today. — Wackymacs 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove not as well written as I first thought. Far too many lists. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Will the reviewers here who wish to keep FA status for this article please back up their vote by thoroughly copyediting it? Here's an example of the obtuse language that pervades the text:

'Although two versions are currently in active use globally and differ relatively significantly, both are vulnerable [to?] and generally affected by spyware, so making a choice between Home and Pro will not always escape this notorious problem.'

• Keep can be improved. It will be a waste if you remove it. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 03:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency towards long, convoluted sentences:

'Windows XP brought to the consumer line of Windows many features previously available only in the server- and workstation-oriented Windows NT and Windows 2000 families, such as greater stability and efficiency due to its pure 32-bit kernel, instead of the hybrid 16-bit/32-bit kernel in prior consumer versions of Windows.'

There are strange lexical items, e.g., 'addons'.

There's a potential POV problem in the first clause here, which could be reworded to avoid negative implications; there are lots of redundancies; and it's generally under-punctuated. [My comments in square brackets; my strike-throughs.] Again, it's not an easy sentence to get through in terms of length and structure.

In order to appeal to foreign markets whose consumers may not be computer literate, the Starter Edition includes some additional specializations not found in the Home Edition such as localized help features for those who may not [coy] speak English, a country-specific computer wallpaper[1] and screensavers, and some other default settings designed for easier [easier than what?] use.

You might consider removing the bold face that some of linked items appear in.

Tony 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) PS I don't agree with the nominator and others that the article is too long.[reply]

• Keep PPGMD 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not long after Tony posted his comment yesterday, I cleaned up the article, killing a list (I don't see how the other two can be killed0, pruning the lead, and shortening some sentences. I then posted comments on Tony's, Ta bu shi da yu's and Wackymacs' talk pages requesting feedback. Johnleemk | Talk 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested feedback. It has improved in places, and the lead is acceptable now, although I'd try to engage the general reader more effectively at the top. However, I'm sorry to say that the article still falls significantly short of 'compellling, even brilliant' prose, as required. Here's an example that has been redone over the last day or two, taken at random:

Compared to previous consumer editions of Windows, Windows XP had greatly improved stability and efficiency due to its pure 32-bit kernel, instead of the hybrid 16-bit/32-bit kernel used by prior Windows consumer editions. It also offers more efficient software management ...

'Compared WITH' for contrasts, please; 'compared TO' for similarities ('Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?'). Pity about 'Windows, Windows'. Should 'had' be 'have'? 'Due to' is typically replaced by professional editors with 'Because', as recommended in several leading US and Br style manuals, and would normally be preceded by a comma in this register. We have 'previous' and 'prior' in the same sentence; why not reword 'By replacing the hybrid ... with a pure ..., Windows XP offered greatly improved ....'. Get rid of 'also'; every sentence you write is additional, so use it only where absolutely necessary for the meaning. There's a redundant 'also' in the subsequent sentence, as well.

Here's another newly minted sentence, again taken at random:

Both editions have prominent differences, with the Home Edition lacking several features provided by ...

I see a lot of 'have' and 'with' in WP articles used in grammatical constructions that might be acceptable in informal oral mode, where body language and intonation might make up for casually incorrect wording; but this is in written mode, and is purporting to explain a complex topic to remote readers. Therefore, greater clarity is required—perhaps something like:

There are significant differences between the editions: the Home Edition lacks several features provided by ...

This is messy writing. My feeling is that a lot more work is required to fulfil Criterion 2(a). Tony 13:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about your crusade against the usage of "also". For instance, it would logically follow that "I like oranges and apples. I like pears and bananas," is preferable to "I like oranges and apples. I also like pears and bananas." The sentence we're discussing here just reads and sounds strange to me without the "also" included. I'm also not clear on how "have...with" provides insufficient clarity. I've made some additional changes to the article, however. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your example would be better as: 'I like oranges, apples, pears and bananas'. OK? Sometimes 'also' is necessary, but here it reads better without. The 'have/with' sentence is unidiomatic (having a difference?) and ungrammatical/awkward ('with the Home Edition lacking', which, strictly speaking, should be 'with the Home Edition's lacking—but that's still awkward. My suggestion above is preferable, isn't it?). Tony 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC) PS Your use of 'additional' in your rejoinder above is similarly redundant; the 'however' makes it perfectly clear.[reply]