Wikipedia:Featured article review/C (programming language)

C programming language

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary

Not enough citations. Ideogram 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but not featured. I believe it could be a good article, but it has to cite more sources to be featured. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with how the article covers C. This is an encyclopedia article on C, not a tutorial. The "hello world" example should not be so long. 70.17.41.123 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive, and packed with useful information. But it sorely needs inline citations, both for some of the more controversial claims related to influence and usage, and for the history and philosophy sections. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are citations (2c) and encyclopedic style (5). Marskell 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject C++. Sandy 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove three weeks, very few edits, almost no changes, no indication anyone is taking it on. The article needs to be referenced. Sandy 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as per Sandy. In addition, the prose needs a lot of work; for such a complicated subject, our readers need utter clarity. Take the second half of the lead.

"C has also had a great influence on most other popular languages[1], especially C++ which was originally designed as an enhancement to C. It is distinguished for the efficiency of the code it produces, and is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], though it is also widely used for writing applications. Though not originally designed as a language for teaching, and despite its somewhat unforgiving character, C is commonly used in computer science education, in part because the language is so pervasive. Note that C# is a very different programming language.

- It would be stronger without the "alsos".
- "Great" might be better as "significant".
- Comma after "C++" is required.
- "distinguished for" better as "distinguished by", I think.
- The second sentence is longish and needs to articulate the relationship between the three separate ideas. Ideas 2 and 3 are very close (contrastive), so why not: "C is distinguished by the efficiency of the code it produces; it is the most commonly used programming language for writing system software [2] [3], although it is widely used for writing applications."
- Two "thoughs" in a row; two "commonly used"s.
- "The language is so pervasive" is unclear; so is "somewhat unforgiving". Tony 02:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Good article, but lots of opinion and too much of a how-to. Has a lot of good parts, and the subject is close to my heart :). In addition to the above, I'll add a few random points:

"Maintenance" seems very opinionated ("drastically increases build times" [a comparison would be nice as well]).
"Although the list of built-in features C lacks is long, this has contributed significantly to its acceptance" without attribution, this is probably a POV violator (I agree with it though after using C++ for several years, but that is besides the point :))
The last paragraph of "Philosophy" is just too much of a how-to and an unneccesary reference to its popular cousin, C++.

RN 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous commentary

For what it's worth, this article is a textbook example of a Wikipedia phenomenon which, if it hasn't been named, should be called the "too many cooks spoil the broth syndrome". Many, many editors who know something about C have added (or deleted) their favorite hot-button statements, with the inevitable result being an undisciplined mishmash. Someone needs to (and I've wanted to) mount a concerted cleanup effort, though of course this (a) will take a lot of time and effort and (b) is guaranteed to result in N tedious discussions with various of those hot-button editors who won't be happy with the way the coverage of their issues has been resolved. (But I'm merely observing here, neither apologizing nor complaining, and of course the situation here is little different from any number of other Wikipedia articles, plenty of which have managed to overcome these difficulties.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]