Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Data Access Components

MDAC

Self nomination. This is a very important Microsoft technology. It is now very comprehensive and it is extensively footnoted. Compare it to the MDAC Roadmap and I think it compares favourably! I think it is ready for FAC nomination. - 203.134.166.99 08:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - The software infobox is inconsistent with others - it has a logo where others have a screenshot. Cedars 08:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised in peer review. There are no screenshots to be had of MDAC, it is a framework - not a GUI app. You mentioned headers, which I asked what you meant but never answered. Could you clarify what you meant so that I may sort this out? - 211.30.175.238 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I agree with the comment. However, the diagram is actually the real representation of MDAC and gives a great overview (IMO) of the architecture at a glance. I hope that this will overcome the objection. - 211.30.175.238 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diagram is fine. Cedars 00:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers Cedars. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cannot vouch for the technical accuracy of the content, but it's well structured and easl to follow, even with my very limited knowledge. 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to sign. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In Image:MDAC Architecture.PNG, the arrow from ".NET managed provider" to "ODBC" points upwards, while every other arrow points downwards. This makes the diagram look more complex than it actually is. --Carnildo 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - 203.134.166.99 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object It's quite a nice article, but needs a little bit of work. The lead should be longer by a paragraph or two, I think. And it needs a copyedit -- for example, Microsoft have seperated the data store from the application that needs access to it through the use of this technology: this was done because different applications need access to different types and sources of data and do not necessarily want to know how to access functionality with technology-specific methods. this sentence alone is too long, has one spelling error, a subject/verb agreement problem, plus some general diction issues (some vague pronouns that makes it unclear what the application needs access to and which technology allows the access, plus it's weird to say "applications don't want" something, since applications don't really have wants). In general, I don't really understand the article at all, but since I don't know anything about the subject, that may unavoidable; still, it's worth looking through to see if anything can be made clearer for noobs. Tuf-Kat 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya. On review it badly needs a copyedit. Can anyone assist in this matter? - 203.134.166.99 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done a bit, probably needs more. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]