Wikipedia:Featured article review/X Window System core protocol/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 removed 11:27, 17 January 2008.

X Window System core protocol[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified Tizio and WikiProject Linux. I believe that the original nominator, Liberatore, is now Tizio, but I'm not sure.

This was promoted in March, 2006. Like X Window System before it, I believe this article no longer meets the featured article criteria, including 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), perhaps 2(b) and 4.

1a: Prose is not engaging, reads like a manual. I'm a technically-oriented person, and I quit reading halfway through. As a programmer, I would find this a useful starting point for learning about the protocol. As a layman looking for an interesting read on a technical topic, I would pass on this.
1b
- No history of the protocol, outside of a blurb in the lead. It's been around for a long time and gone through several revisions. Information about why design decisions were originally made would be interesting. In the original FA nom, it was suggested that this article may not need a history, since it's a subarticle of X Windows. But I think there's a distinction between the history of the protocol and the history of the larger system.
- Similarly, there's no info about the influence of the protocol. A lot of similar systems have been made since X was created. Surely there have been lessons learned.
- No criticism. A lot of people don't like the X architecture.
- No information about notable implementations of the protocol (may be more appropriate for the main article).
1c: Inline referencing is sparse. Most of the information in this article can probably be sourced from the spec (which is in the references), so this may be ok.
2b
- There are a lot of headings, but they're only one level deep. A lot of them could be grouped under a "System architecture" heading or some such.
- There's an "Example" heading right in the middle of the sections on system features. Seems out of place (the original author did address this in peer review).
4: Not sure about this one. There's a lot of detail that would be dry or incomprehensible to most people, including specific event names, and even hex identifiers.
Other
- I'd like to see a clarification on the responsibilities of the client and server. It's often not obvious to new users what processing is going on where.
- Uses C-style hex notation (0xABCD, etc) without explanation.

On the positive side, there's a lot of good information here, and the images are helpful. This article went through peer review and FA nomination without a lot of criticism, and I think it shows. Maybe some experienced editors should have another look at it.Demian12358 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), ToC (2b), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. --Peter Andersen (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.