Talk:Debian/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this over the next few days. Jamesx12345 21:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1
  • Discussing kernels in the second para could intimidate some users, and somewhat reinforces stereotypes about Linux users :-). That could be removed, as it is discussed later on.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debian is seen as a stable Linux distribution" - this could be tagged with a [by whom?], I don't think it is needed anyway.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are significant inconsistencies with the refs, and they don't all use {{cite web}}, which will help fix that. Some say The Debian Project, others are debian.org. Dates are also not consistent, and some titles are missing. A few links are also dead.
 Done
Mentioned inconsistencies are fixed.[1][2] I hope the remaining inconsistencies are not significant. Please indicate if reference consistency should be improved further. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 144 appears to be out of date, and a {{tl|as of}] could be employed here.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vital role the Debian project plays in free software..." - vital? Not mentioned in source.
 Done
Paragraph is rewritten. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Debian project released a new kernel as of Wheezy's release date..." - no mention of what Wheezy is here.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ten machine architectures" - "processor architecture" is more obvious.
 Done
i386 and kfreebsd-i386 are different architectures but the processor is the same. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "primarily known as a Linux distribution with access to online" - it is a Linux distribution, so no need for "known as"
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "software packages" - no mention of what a package is in Linux terms.
     Done. I believe the actual inline description would only blur the focus of the article and distract readers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{USD}} will display the cost with a nbsp.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I'll get a few more points down now. Jamesx12345 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Debian offers 10 DVD and 69 CD images for..." - this paragraph needs a few more refs.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allows visually-impaired people to use its installer." - "includes aids for visually-impaired people." - bit clearer.
 Done
I hope no one will get shocked because "Debian gives aids". 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expert users" - not sure this is necessary, could be replaced with more details about network installation.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debian's new form of installation-from-USB has.." - no refs in this para.
 Done
This addresses the next two issues. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debian is one of the few Linux..." - Ubuntu does this?
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ubuntu does.[3] This source is the reason I have removed the sentence. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there is quite a lot of detail on the installation, and the second paragraph repeats elements of the first.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other notable new features in Debian's..." - a few more refs are needed here, reviews might be useful.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debian's install-media is distributed..." - redundant to earlier, should probably come first.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNOME has already been linked.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "others can also be installed." - needs ref, maybe change to "others can are also available."
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particular target group" - not sure what this means.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This may be useful for a prospective..." - this sentence could probably be cut.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "netboot" - abbreviations can be confusing, Network booting would be clearer.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48 to the Japanese Wikipedia is very odd, something like this would do.
 Done
GLAN Tank support is already mentioned in the next reference. As I understand, this Japanese reference was meant to be a wiki link for more information, but GLAN Tank does not have an article in the English Wikipedia. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggestions point to aptitude..." is a bit weasley, I also can't see much about package metadata in the source, and don't see why that is a big thing.
 Done
As a matter of fact, the source says: In case of doubt, please use the apt-get and apt-cache commands over the aptitude command. Search on metadata is just a feature. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • APT tools for online repositories - the content under this heading repeats some of what is said earlier.
 Done
Fixed with the previous edit. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modern" - "up to date" is a more normal.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""live on the edge"" - colloquial
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even though it's documented" - "Even though it is documented"
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Third-party repositories is unreferenced at the moment.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The real minimum memory requirements are much..." - this needs a few references, especially about it actually being usable.
 Done
I have installed Debian wheezy on a virtual machine to verify the claim on amd64. The machine has 60 MiB of RAM and 1 GiB of disk space, without network. I used the CD 1 from the set. With a 128 MiB swap partition, the system has around 524 MiB available. I can use the nano text editor and play with aptitude's minesweeper.
The key in the installation process is to create the swap partition and activate it manually. This procedure is not trivial.
There are reports about previous versions being usable,[4] but I cannot find sources about wheezy. Anyway, the article does not claim whether the systems are usable or not. Since usable is relative, we leave that conclusion to the reader. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I found this source:
Schneider, Ivan (2007-03-23). "How To Revive An Old PC With Linux". InformationWeek. Retrieved 2014-05-30.
It is partner article (with editorial overview of IW this should not be a problem), old and does not tell the details about hardware in question, but the whole article is basically written to prove the statement, so it might be used for verification of the claim. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "must be added" - this makes it sound like 1Ghz + 200Mhz = 1.2Ghz, or something like that. "must be considered as well" is less misleading.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few refs that appear to be slightly misused. For example, "Debian is known for its serious manifesto..." is referenced to https://www.debian.org/social_contract, which only states that the manifesto exsists, not that it is known for it or that it is serious. The root of the issue is probably that so many refs go to debian.org, which is great for some things but not so great for others. There are no links to The Register or Ars Technica, both of which are great starting points for this kind of thing.
 Done
As far as I know, the only other policy Debian is known for is the trademark policy. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[5] This reference was misused too. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay (again). I'll get to the end of the article by tomorrow will start running through it again. Jamesx12345 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each of them sustains some..." - I'm not sure if this sentence is necessary. I think more explanation about the actual development process would be helpful, especially how it differs from a commercial process.
 Done
Package maintenance is described in a later section. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although packages are increasingly co-maintained." - ref needed.
 Done
The material in the Package maintenance section is sourced. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most important of these..." - Per Wikipedia:EUPHEMISM, "the largest donor" or something to that effect.
 Done
As far as I know, SPI is not a donor but the manager. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "single packages or domains" - domain hasn't been explained.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Informally, Internet Relay Chat channels..." - this kind of detail could be trimmed, but if a decent source can be found it would make an interesting addition that says something about the devs.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Together, the Developers may make..." to "...and as the circumstances allow." is unsourced.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stub for Steve McIntyre would make it look nicer, tbh, but is beyond the scope of this review. I might get round to creating something.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More secondary sources are needed around this point - phrases like "steady influx of applicants wishing to become developers" need secondary sources to be properly credible, as do descriptors such as "elaborate."
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uploaded to unstable are normally" - use of italics is a bit disconcerting - "quote marks" are more readable.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "matured and the goals for the next release are met" - "are complete and have been sufficiently tested", or something to that effect, makes it sound more natural.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Periodically" - "When a change has been made to a package," - it's not a "regular" thing.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "signed to be able to reject" - the package doesn't do the rejecting, "Packages are signed in order to identify uploads from hostile..."
 Done
The sentence is unsourced anyway. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Packages are signed..." to "...version of each package." is unreferenced.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suite of packages" - "distribution"
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, new code is also untried code," - this sounds like a mantra, and can be removed.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another use of "suite" here.
 Done
Fixed with the "suite" above. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "urgency" - is that how critical the package is, or how important a patch is?
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "area" - another word for distribution. The rest of that sentence is a bit unclear as well.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Periodically, the Release Manager..." - these two paragraphs are a bit unclear, and also need references.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "archive" - which archive?
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs on security need more secondary sources for obvious reasons. The Reception section at the end should be broken up, and the bit about the RNG added in here.
 Done
Debian developer Javier Fernandez-Sanguino is listed as a past member of the OVAL board. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a release goal for Debian 7.0..." - out of date.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of May 2013..." - also out of date.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Debian 6.0 (squeeze)..." - lots of dense detail here, could be trimmed.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table has a few [citation needed] tags, and could be clearer - TBA is well understood, and can be removed.
 Done
I have not found any evidence of support for the oldest releases. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perens developed the project..." - all this is uncited.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2005-present section is a bit of a mess - just needs a bit of oversight and the removal of line breaks.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reception section, as per above, should be merged into the rest of the article. Server Distribution of the Year from 2007 can probably be removed somewhere along the way.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers in Further reading are a bit odd - can these books be used as secondary references instead?
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First pass done. I'll let you make some fixes and then go through it again. Thanks for being so quick at responding to points. Jamesx12345 22:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone wants this review to fail. Could Bollyjeff explain the revert? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mistake. Self reverted. BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2[edit]

I'll just go through it again, and might add a few tags. Jamesx12345 17:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2
  • The intro still isn't "right." It needs to be a bit longer, and maybe less technical. Ideally, any refs would bee redundant to the body of the article and could be removed.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Debian includes popular programs..." - are they all included in the vanilla installation? The list also needs a ref.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The kernel is..." - lots of kernels mentioned at this point.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also brought support for two new architectures: s390x and armhf." - ref, another for the details would be good as well.
 Done
I do not think an article by a Debian developer would be appropriate in this context. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this different Desktops have different images for installation. A ref for that sentence would also be good.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about another delay. Jamesx12345 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Debian Installer team announced that the first CD includes GNOME thanks to their efforts to minimize the amount of disc space GNOME takes up." - this is probably longer than it has to be.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its install disk 1" - "first install disk"
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a subset of Debian" - is this analogous to version?
 Done
No. Versions (Debian 7.5, Debian Wheezy) are not pure blends. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Debian Wiki an RS? I'd like to think it is, as it has a very close connection to the project, but another ref might put some people at ease.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debian version 5.0 "Lenny" was the first official Live CD release. - I removed this as I don't think it is terribly useful, as every feature that wasn't in 1.0 had to be added somewhere.
 Agree 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about embedded systems could be trimmed to remove a lot of the product names. Is Debian used on anything other than NASs?
 Done
Debian is used on plug computers. It looks like smartphones are not officially supported. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it used on things like cash machines, EPOSs, Set-top boxes etc? Jamesx12345 16:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
It can be used, but I am not aware of any company using Debian on those devices. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "storage information center" - not sure what this means.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "official standard for administering" - it's not official, just recommended (I think.)
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about Packages is in general short of a few refs. In particular, there are no refs between "An APT tool allows administration of..." and "...include Software Center, Synaptic and Apper."
 Done[6][7] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Debian website, repositories and distros seem to be stylised as sid, stable etc (both the "state" and its alias.) There is quite a bit of inconsistency around this, some of it added by me.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check this diff (nothing major). Thanks.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
The old paragraph did not mention the architecture dependent bit. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manually selecting the packages needed" - what about a Blend?
 Done
No official blends yet. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arm (OABI..." - arm has not been mentioned before, but armel has. There is also some unclear formatting here, and you might want to double check everything that is said or implied.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The figure for the number of developers is a bit dubious. This suggests a number closer to 1400.
 Done
The problem is that the expression "developed by volunteers" misleads to think "Debian developers". There is no definition of a "Debian volunteer". 3000 developers is plain wrong, even with Debian maintainers. 3000 volunteers only makes sense with a broader meaning, including patch submitters, users helping in mailing lists and conferences, etc. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unstable (also known as "sid"), - here, distros are stylised as "sid" rather than sid.
 Done
Updated templates as well.[8][9] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...criticism to Debian's practice of making Debian-specific changes to software." - needs a ref.
 Done
The vulnerability was serious and there was a negative reaction, but I have not found much criticism. Quoting Tim Hudson from OpenSSL, "Attributing blame for this issue is a pretty pointless exercise IMHO." 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 7 or 7.5 going to be used here? It should be harmonised with the version given in the infobox.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New intro? One more sentence about the development would be great.
 Done 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good now. For comparison, here is the diff of everything, which constitutes about 150 odd edits. Jamesx12345 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. Are we still good? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final check, all fine. Good work. Jamesx12345 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debian/GA2&oldid=614224871"