418:
against. There is no section for reception, and although there is a paragraph on reviews of version 2, there is almost no info on the reception of other versions. (Even the paragraph on the reception of version 2 is much shorter than sections on less noteworthy facets of the topic.) Taken all together, I don't think this will be ready for featured status without substantial changes throughout. –
239:
Small comment: I notice that basically the entire article is couched in past tense. This struck me as a little odd, which I realized was because for video games, we tend to treat things like development and release as historical, while the actual features/elements of the game remain the same (thus,
417:
at this time, unfortunately. The prose is stilted throughout, made almost entirely of very short paragraphs, many with only a single sentence (including in the lead). It feels like a collection of unintegrated facts. Some statements have long strings of up to eight citations, which the MoS advises
188:
standard. I've been polishing this article for the past several months, researching the history in detail to get the story citably right (and reading all the press coverage I can find from the past decade in several languages, citing it to the hilt) and I think it's ready. It's just come through a
392:
Fixed. Thank you very much indeed for spotting these! The application icon SVGs appear not to be original application icons at all, but someone's reconstruction after the fact - all the application icons made available at the time were raster images. I've replaced them with the actual OOo 3 icons
323:
Well, that's fine, worth asking about. Anyhow, I did a spotcheck on statements sourced to current refs 1, 13, 14, 15, 17, 73, 84, 85, 92, 153, and found no issues with inaccuracies. I did however add a
124:
119:
248:
in 2011.) It's been years since I've thought about the dichotomy, but I was wondering if you knew of any wider discussions about the topic, especially in the programming/comp-sci projects.
539:-- This nom has been open a month and it appears that there's still work to be done addressing what it received in terms of review last month, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers,
517:
Related comment - are the refs archived somewhere? There are a lot of potential dead links in 2 years time, so adding them to the
Wayback Machine would preserve their usefulness.
309:
uses this method and reads to me as a confusion, including tense changes mid-sentence. So it's a consistent rule, but IMO is liable to lead to bad prose. It's a tricky one -
428:
The MOS advises against citations? Seriously? Everything that's multiply cited is so because it needed citation (see talk page and archives) or in direct response to a
190:
444:
It's not clear to me your concerns on prose are clear enough for me to action. What's a good example of a technical article that you would think passes? -
40:
462:: "A string of independent citations may also be aesthetically unappealing, so consider bundling them into one." (It also gives a list of advantages at
396:. The OOo logo in the template appears to have been a tentative version - I've replaced it with the official trademarked OOo 3 logo from the website -
285:
558:
30:
17:
569:
90:
85:
334:
tag on a section of info that didn't appear to be clearly sourced (I could not find the info in the single ref for that paragraph.)
94:
588:
548:
524:
500:
486:
453:
422:
405:
387:
357:
340:
318:
297:
276:
254:
232:
202:
172:
77:
56:
213:
Apologies that this is going to be so piece-meal, but I might as well try and hit up whatever criteria I can when I can :)
491:
Ah, I see what you mean! I'll bundle at least a few, then, this evening. I'll also see what I can do to be more dashing -
471:
140:
145:
459:
496:
449:
401:
353:
314:
293:
272:
198:
168:
521:
463:
383:
193:. It's an important piece of software with a complicated story, but I hope to have made it clear -
81:
584:
544:
302:
394:
492:
445:
397:
349:
310:
289:
268:
194:
164:
562:
518:
335:
249:
227:
379:
306:
264:
561:
has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
73:
66:
580:
540:
281:
53:
483:
475:
467:
466:.) As for prose, we have plenty of technical articles with lively and vivid prose:
419:
185:
111:
576:
432:
328:
180:
The first viable open-source competitor to
Microsoft Office, and instigator and
479:
260:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
263:
which was entirely in past tense (though "is" in intro, as here).
393:(which were already on Commons), which are the actual icons from
267:
has a confusion of tenses. Not sure there's a MOS on this -
221:
Total of 10 images, all claimed free (GNU), all check out.
150:
345:
107:
103:
99:
59:
284:
doesn't address the issue at all. I've asked on its
305:suggests something similar to your suggestion, but
125:
Featured article candidates/OpenOffice.org/archive2
120:
Featured article candidates/OpenOffice.org/archive1
438:- can you identify which you think are gratuitous?
596:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
375:File:OOoDraw.svg is tagged as lacking source info
378:File:OOo3.2.1Icon.png: source link returns 404.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
259:Yeah, I was wondering about that. I looked at
602:No further edits should be made to this page.
575:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
441:Can add/refactor out a section on reception.
129:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
458:It's actually at the content guideline
132:
117:
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
244:the ODF, while active development
24:
413:I'm afraid I'm going to have to
184:reference implementation of the
226:Going to hit up sources next.
1:
472:Microsoft Security Essentials
57:10:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
589:05:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
549:05:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
525:22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
501:16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
487:13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
454:07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
423:20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
406:19:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
388:17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
358:20:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
341:20:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
319:21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
298:19:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
277:19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
255:18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
233:11:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
570:featured article candidates
203:09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
173:09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
31:featured article nomination
619:
337:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
251:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
240:OpenOffice's file format
229:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
599:Please do not modify it.
460:Knowledge:Citing sources
36:Please do not modify it.
208:Comments by David Fuchs
176:
158:
157:
610:
601:
574:
568:
565:, and leave the
437:
431:
338:
333:
327:
252:
230:
161:
130:
115:
97:
48:The article was
38:
618:
617:
613:
612:
611:
609:
608:
607:
606:
597:
572:
566:
537:Closing comment
435:
429:
336:
331:
325:
307:Microsoft Works
265:Microsoft Works
250:
228:
88:
72:
70:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
616:
614:
605:
604:
592:
591:
579:goes through.
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
442:
439:
411:
410:
409:
408:
376:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
300:
279:
237:
236:
235:
224:
223:
222:
210:
209:
178:
177:
163:Nominator(s):
156:
155:
154:
153:
151:External links
148:
143:
135:
134:
128:
127:
122:
74:OpenOffice.org
69:
67:OpenOffice.org
64:
63:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
615:
603:
600:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
571:
564:
560:
556:
553:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
526:
523:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:WP:CITEBUNDLE
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
434:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
416:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:
372:
371:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
342:
339:
330:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:Codename Lisa
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:MOS:COMPUTING
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
253:
247:
243:
238:
234:
231:
225:
220:
219:
218:
215:
214:
212:
211:
207:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
187:
183:
175:
174:
170:
166:
160:
159:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
131:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
68:
65:
62:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
598:
595:
555:Closing note
554:
536:
535:
493:David Gerard
476:Nintendo DSi
468:Rosetta@home
446:David Gerard
414:
412:
398:David Gerard
370:Image review
369:
368:
350:David Gerard
311:David Gerard
290:David Gerard
269:David Gerard
245:
241:
216:
195:David Gerard
186:OpenDocument
181:
179:
165:David Gerard
162:
146:Citation bot
71:
50:not promoted
49:
47:
35:
28:
191:peer review
380:Nikkimaria
563:WP:FAC/ar
559:candidate
482:, etc. –
286:talk page
581:Ian Rose
557:: This
541:Ian Rose
189:helpful
182:de facto
141:Analysis
54:Ian Rose
484:Quadell
480:Actuary
420:Quadell
133:Toolbox
91:protect
86:history
415:oppose
261:RSTS/E
246:ceased
217:images
95:delete
522:12345
519:James
346:Cited
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
585:talk
545:talk
497:talk
450:talk
402:talk
384:talk
354:talk
348:! -
315:talk
294:talk
273:talk
199:talk
169:talk
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
577:bot
52:by
587:)
573:}}
567:{{
547:)
499:)
478:,
474:,
470:,
452:)
436:}}
433:cn
430:{{
404:)
386:)
356:)
332:}}
329:cn
326:{{
317:)
296:)
288:-
275:)
242:is
201:)
171:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
61:.
33:.
583:(
543:(
495:(
448:(
400:(
382:(
352:(
313:(
292:(
271:(
197:(
167:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.