Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Windows XP/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Windows XP

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a main operating system, and quality info should be given as to it (besides, Mac OS X is GA, and this isn't?!) :-)

Thanks, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs) - Put simply, this needs tons of work before its even GA standard.

  • "Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001, and over 400 million copies were in use in January 2006, according to an estimate in that month by an IDC analyst" - Can we have a more recent figure? (2008?)
  • "and worldwide to the general public on January 30, 2007. - weed out redundant words.
  • "Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows." - Really? I know XP is quite stable, but it isn't that much of an improvement over previous versions. I am confident in saying 2000 is more stable (overall, a better OS). You need to find some reliable sources to back up claims like this.
  • "During development, the project was codenamed "Whistler", after Whistler, British Columbia, as many Microsoft employees skied at the Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort.[9]" - This is too trivial for the lead. Put it somewhere else.
  • "Windows XP Starter Edition is a lower-cost edition of Windows XP available..." - lower-cost than what? If you are not mentioning other editions, then just say "low-cost", or maybe "inexpensive"?
  • "Each country's edition is also customized for that country, including desktop backgrounds of popular locations" - Sounds terrible. Try instead: "Each edition is specific to the country where it is sold, including desktop backgrounds of popular locations"
  • "can only run 3 programs at a time," - Smaller numbers are better spelled out: "can only run three programs at a time,"
  • "Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 that do not contain Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger" - Do you mean "or", or do you mean "and"? I think it should say "and".
  • The paragraph starting with "In December 2005, the Korean Fair Trade Commission" is awful... "Like the European Commission decision, this decision " - decision, decision, decision, decision! - can we have some variety in the words used to make this prose flow nicely?
  • "That same year, Microsoft also released two additional editions of Windows XP Home Edition directed towards subscription-based and pay-as-you-go pricing models" - State the year again, and "directed towards" is bad word usage. Try instead: "Microsoft released two additional editions of Windows XP Home Edition in 2006, which used subscription-based and pay-as-you-go pricing models."
  • "Languages" sub-section is too short to warrant its own header. Put it somewhere else.
  • "New and updated features" is a list. Convert it to prose.
  • "Common criticisms" section is a mess. Rename it "Criticism". The biggest problem here is POV and unreferenced content. You might be better off re-writing this section.
  • "License and media types" - First few paragraphs are unwikified, add some links.
  • No History/Development section??? Add one that describes the development history, the product launch (the XP launch was big). How long did it take MS to develop? How much money was invested in R&D? When was the first beta released? And so on...
  • Is "Literature/Books" meant to be "Further reading"?
  • Most of the citations are unformatted. Add access date, publisher info, author info and publication date to online refs per WP:CITE.
  • Don't use forums for footnotes. They are not the best sources available. Windows XP is still the most-used OS in the world. There will be thousands, millions of reliable sources for everything you need.
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
  • Most of the footnotes cite Microsoft's web pages. You need to use more third party sources such as magazines, newspapers, trade journals. Good examples are New York Times, TIME and other national papers. There are also many computer magazines which can be used, and don't forget books.
  • Huge amount of work to do. Some parts need rewriting. Some need reliable sources. And there's quite a bit of missing information that readers would like to know (such as development history and launch info).
  • I hope my feedback is useful, please let me know if you need further comments or any help.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Windows_XP/archive3&oldid=1138566738"