Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BackupHDDVD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] BackupHDDVD

Self-nomination Currently GA. Covers the subject exhaustively if not completely, for that reason I think the unusually short length can be excused. Has plenty of references and has been stable for a while now. Noclip 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for several reasons:
  • I personally don't believe the prose is very fluid or captivating. The FA admin can take this as they will, it's just my personal opinion after reading through the article.
    • Can you clarify this? Examples?
  • Some hail it as a victory for consumers' fair use rights, while others are expressing concerns that it will be used for piracy. This is an example of...er...I can't really remember the term, but you claim that some people do something while others do something else without really providing any sources.
    • Done
  • The referencing doesn't make very much sense to me. Almost half of all notes are references to some website's forum, one is a broken link [1] [2], and none of them follow the proper formatting for citation.
    • The YouTube reference is meant to demonstrate that it was taken down.
  • The section heading "AACS cracked?" seems like the title of an opinion editorial.
    • Done
  • When the release of the tool was publicized, several articles incorrectly claimed that AACS had been "cracked." Which articles? This is just another example of a number of claims made in this articles that are not backed up.
    • Done Examples added.
  • This link will not always report the article in its "latest news" section.
    • Looking for a mirror, but archive.org seems to be lagging a year behind.
  • So my best suggestion to you would be to consult other FAs and try to bring it up to the standard of those while finding more reputable sources to back up the stuff that's written in the article. Then take what you've written and subject it to a heavy copyedit to get things flowing correctly. Then get over to peer review and see what they can do to help. Hope this helps, JHMM13 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • • Thanks for responding to my suggestions. I'm sorry about linking the YouTube link. As you can see by the wording, I only meant to include one after remembering that the link references something within the article. I would like to continue working with you to help improve this article, but I'm afraid I don't have time to do it at the moment. For this reason I don't think it is fair for me to oppose this article because I can't match the effort you put into it and I'm changing my input to neutral. Thanks again and I appreciate the hard work you've put into the article. JHMM13 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• "free, open source utility" may not necessarily be released as public domain. Could you check on the licence?
  • The SourceForge page (before it was removed) listed it as PD.
• presumably for the purpose -- presumably?
  • Presumed by the author. It could be used in a wide variety of ways, but the use it was created for was backup.
• Too many short paragraphs. Could be merged into a larger section
  • Done
• There's just one line to its working. This needs to be expanded.
  • Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of my points are still not fixed. Here are some more comments.

1. Licence is still PD in the infobox

• • For the second time the official project on SourceForge listed it as public domain. What do you suggest the license be changed to?

1. initial version external link is bad style. Use Wikipedia:Footnote3 to avoid mixing with references.

• • Done It was a duplicate also, removed

1. =Background= --> =Working=

• • This has less to do with the criteria than your personal preference.

1. Size of the program?

• • Done

1. January 24th --> wikify as January 24

• • Done

1. presumably is too vague to be used here.

• • Done Reworded

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like it! It's a pleasure to read and very informative. While not PERFECT, certainly better than other artcles that have recieved FA status. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sue, you really need to familiarise yourself with the Featured article criteria. Featured Articles ought to be damn near perfect. Maybe if you've seen others which aren't, they were old FAs needing review (WP:FAR) or had been vandalised. Either way, or whatever the reason, please focus on the article in question and how/whether it meets the criteria. --kingboyk 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last statement of the previous reviewer appears to be irrelevant to the criteria. Oppose because the prose is awkward and faulty throughout. Here are just a few examples.
  • "does not violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act nor ..." No, "neither ... nor", otherwise don't use "nor".
  • "to successfully decrypt a disc's contents" - ungainly on a number of counts.
  • "a task with which neither BackupHDDVD nor its author provide any assistance" - "With"?
    • This is a perfectly valid way of expressing "a task which neither BackupHDDVD nor its author provide any assistance with."
  • "For several weeks after the utility's release no claims of having been able to successfully use the author's key extraction technique were made" - Avoid possessive apostrophe for unconscious items. Comma almost compulsory after "release". It's another ungainly sentence.
  • "However, in mid-January, a key was published and several others quickly discovered a method" - Several other what? Tony 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done Addressed general concern of awkward prose, fixed specific examples. Noclip 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)