Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article put on hold due to:

Some NTFS features are not supported in ReFS, including named streams, object IDs, short names, file compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, and disk quotas.

Appears to be copied from source 34. I failed the article last time for systemic plaigirism, please check the sources in this article, I have only checked two references (one was in teh last review) and both times i came across plaigirism.

This is not a direct copy because "including" in the article is not the same as "specifically" in the source. I've checked the other sources and I'm sure there's no plagiarism, if there is, I will remove it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that this warrants mention in the article: The Australian construction company Kennards was impressed by the stability of the OS.[53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your claims i still find that the following section is plaigirism.

Note the similarities:

named streams, object IDs, short names, file compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, and disk quotas.[35][34] (from the wiki article)

named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes, and quotas (from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-goes-public-with-plans-for-its-new-windows-8-file-system/11666)

Please rectify this.Retrolord (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further plaigirism

This sentence:

symbolic links, junction points, mount points, reparse points, volume snapshots, file IDs, and oplock. ReFS seamlessly[35]

Is copied from the source, also, the source is in the wrong spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further plaigirism

This sentence:

IPAM provides for administration and monitoring of servers running Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and Domain Name System (DNS).

Copied from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831353.aspx Retrolord (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive referencing

This sentence:

Up to 1024 virtual machines can be active per host, and up to 8000 can be active per failover cluster.[29][31]

I am unsure as to what [29] has to do with it. Retrolord (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, single listings like these are not copyrightable to this extent. I've removed the redundant reference. As long as it is sufficiently paraphrased it is not plagiarism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they were paraphrased they would not be plaigirism. But these are not paraphrased.

Retrolord (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(please use indenting for readability) No, the sentences as a whole are paraphrased. Besides, anyone can say these items in that order.... does that make it a copyright violation? No. If you have big problems with that, change the order of the list accordingly, but I feel that this is not considered plagiarism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the intro:

The software was generally available to customers starting on September 4, 2012 and worldwide through multiple channels in September 2012.[3]

What does that mean?

Although it has a Metro user interface (which has led to a mixed reception for Windows 8), the operating system has generally received positive reviews for these features.

Implies Metro user interface is a bad thing?

Various features were added or improved over Windows Server 2008 R2, such as an updated version of Hyper-V, an IP address management role, a new version of Windows Task Manager, and ReFS, a new file system.

Implies it is better than Windows Server 2008 R2, is this the broad consensus? It mentions additions and improvements, but the metro user interface is mentioned in a negative way, so shouldnt you clarify that not everything was good?

Please work on these points. Thanks, Retrolord (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I've been asked to take a look at the plagiarism concerns. "IPAM is used for administration and monitoring of servers running Domain Name System (DNS) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)." is a bit too close to the source for my tastes, but Jasper Deng is right in that you can't copyright a list like that since the items can't be paraphrased as they are what the technology is called. --Rs chen 7754 03:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Rschen7754! I'll give up on the lists, but as you said the IPAM part is too close to the source. Retrolord (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is only intended to summarize. The history section and the editions section clarify it. The second sentence addresses the notion that because the OS is based off Windows 8, people might criticize it for the Metro UI as well - the sentence says nothing about the interface. The third one is clearly shown by the reception and the list of changes.
Mentioning the construction company says something about the stability of the OS, something readers are looking for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the IPAM sentence. As for the Metro sentence, you bring up a good point. Wikipedia is about providing due weight proportional to coverage in reliable sources. "Generally positive" does not mean "exclusively positive", and a few sentences on the reception sentence mention such criticism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence: The software was generally available to customers starting on September 4, 2012 and worldwide through multiple channels in September 2012.[3]

Does not make sense, it was generall available on sept 4, and worldwide in september? If it was already generally available on sept 4, why was it then released worldwide. i dont understand.

Also, is a construction company qualified to comment on the stability of a server OS? I would prefer it if you got another source for that point, from somewhere qualified in such matters. Retrolord (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]