Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows 7/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:57, 28 November 2010 [1].

Windows 7[edit]

Featured article candidates/Windows 7/archive1

Nominator(s): Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a good article about widely used Operating system.It has explanations with images that satisfies the criteria for inclusion of non-free content.It has tables to make the subject and comparison clear.It is properly cited with more than 125 references.Also long enough without unnecessary information.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No indication that the nominator is an editor of this article or has consulted those who are Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:FA Criteria 3 isn't even plausible! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - multiple problems in reference formatting, missing information in references, problems with WP:RS and WP:V (citation-needed tags, inappropriate sources). Recommend WP:GAN after consultation with the main editors of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Nomination proposal is almost as illuminating as the actual article. To cover the problems with this briefly, the fact Windows 7 is widely used is neither here nor there. Long length and a large number of references are also no criteria: the length should be sufficient to cover the subject without excessive deviation and no longer. Similarly, articles should be sufficiently referenced to back up the points made in the article - references above that do nothing, and raising points specifically to wedge in a reference artificially actually detracts from an article.

Turning to the actual article it appears to me to be short of the required standard. I share the concerns raised by Jimfbleak and also Nikkimara in respect of reference style (specifically one or two hatnotes are misplaced). The lede could probably do with a good overhaul since at present it does not nicely summarise the article - the hatnotes can be purged at the same time.

Other concerns:

Dates are not in a consistent format throughout the article - yes, the infobox does count.
The language could use a certain amount of sharpening up. There are a few inappropriate uses of semicolons in particular that grate.
References could use a little weeding. Some are redundant (where an authoritative source is alongside a less reliable source) and some do not comply with WP:RS. Some references are also not much more than bare links: additional details would be preferable.
Division into sections needs attention, since some sections wholly or partly duplicate each other wheres others merge off-topic issues. For example, the "Editions" and "Marketing" sections would benefit from being integrated, and conversely the "Development" section dedicates more time to releases (of betas and otherwise) than to the actual development process.
In that same Development section, where does Windows NT come from? An assertion is made about NT without showing how that is remotely relevant to the subject of the article. That is a connection that hasn't been made.

The problems above should be considered exemplary rather than exhaustive. To echo Nikkimara's point, this is not really the place for initial scrutiny such as this. There are other places you can take this for the broad brush stuff to get an article near where it needs to be for FA status. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 20:41, 28 November 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.