Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Architecture of Btrieve/Archive1
Architecture of Btrieve[edit]
Self-nomination I split this off from Btrieve, which was featured a little while ago. I have attempted to get it to featured article status and have already placed it on Peer Review for comment, with noone responding. I'd like to try to get this to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this is the same person who nominated Autobiography promotion and publicity for deletion. I've never even heard of Btrieve before. That said, on a cursory glance it looks like an OK article. Everyking 08:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you are concerned about it, please place it on VfD, as I did to your own article. I don't see what that has to do with anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm just curious as to what you think the difference is. Near as I can tell the article you nominated is more notable than this. I'm not going to VfD it, because I think it's a perfectly good article; that would be disrupting WP to make a point. Everyking 17:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you are concerned about it, please place it on VfD, as I did to your own article. I don't see what that has to do with anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. It seems like a OK article, not bad and not too fantastic. I just don't think that people who never heard of Btrieve (I don't either) would understand the article. Squash 09:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object for now. 1) As other already point out, a bit more context is needed. This is not the Btrieve article, but we should be introduced to it briefly - just a link to the article won't do. We need to know that Pervasive is the company that made the product, who Kyle & Harris are, etc. 2) This appears to be about the architecture of version 6.15 only. If indeed so, the article title should reflect this, or more on previous versions should be added. 3) More context/links/explanation for database specific features is also needed. People reading this article may know a little about software, but nothing about databases in particular. For example: explain what a b-tree is (briefly). 4) There are many "top level" sections here, but many of them have only one paragraph of content. This suggests that either a) more information is available on these topics, or b) the sectioning and organisation of the article should be improved. Jeronimo 11:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed the first line to try to introduce it really briefly. I've noted that Pervasive sell it. The second point I don't know how to address: nothing much really changed as far as I know in the architecture and I do cover stuff before then. I will do something about info on b-trees. I'll look into fixing the structure and organisation :-) This is more feedback than I got from peer review! Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The article has already improved - I'll await your further changes. Just a note: my commentary on b-trees was just an example. As George Stepanek points out below, there are more terms that could use a brief explanation. Jeronimo 07:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed the first line to try to introduce it really briefly. I've noted that Pervasive sell it. The second point I don't know how to address: nothing much really changed as far as I know in the architecture and I do cover stuff before then. I will do something about info on b-trees. I'll look into fixing the structure and organisation :-) This is more feedback than I got from peer review! Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. This article desperately needs more diagrams to make the concepts clear. B-trees? Illustrate with a diagram. Doubly linked key list? Diagram. Variable-tail allocation table? Diagram. Pre-image paging vs Shadow paging? Diagram. Etc. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)