Talk:Comment (computer programming)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
{{subst:GASWeepsHold}}

• I am concerned at the quality of some of the sources used in this article, for instance www.freshmeat.net.

* Cite removed, related content removed as redundant.

• As the lead is supposed to be an overview and a summary of the article I do not see the need for a separate Overview section immediately following it. Whatever is important in this section should be incorporated into the lead.

* Lead section modified to incorporate former "Overview" section

• There appears to be a link to a blog at devbiz that is unavailable. Blogs cannot be considered reliable sources in any case.

• The image in the lead makes unexplained reference to prologue and inline comments.

• There are far too many very short sections, such as Advertising in-code and Audio comments, many of them completely uncited.

• The article does not explain that different programming languages have different syntaxes for comments.

• If the categorisation of comments into prologue, inline, end-of line et al is significant, then it should be properly inroduced early in the article.

• "This C code fragment demonstrates the use of a prologue comment or "block comment" ..." So which is it, a prologue comment, a block comment, or both? Why the scare quotes?

• Comments in web templates; HTML is not a programming language, so why is this included?

• "In between these views is the philosophy that comments are neither beneficial nor harmful by themselves ..." The word "philosophy" is being abused in this article. These are opinions, not philosphies.

• Potentially significant sections such as Metadata and annotations (which is completely uncited) do not adequately cover their topic, thus not meeting the GA broadness criterion.

• "Some contend that comments are often not necessary or unhelpful ...". Who are these anonymous "some"?

• "Comments are often employed for these and related methods because they allow the use of syntax and lexical conventions that might otherwise conflict with those of the enclosing programming language. This is another sense in which it is helpful that compilers and interpreters "ignore" comments." If this is "another sense", then what was the first sense?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• • As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)