Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Architecture of Btrieve/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Architecture of Btrieve[edit]

Self-nomination — I got Btrieve to FA status, however during my attempts I shifted large amounts of material to the article Architecture of Btrieve. I then tried to get this to FA status but failed - the objections can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Architecture of Btrieve/Archive1. They were largely to do with explaining what a btree was and that the lead section wasn't terribly interesting. I have since fixed up these issues so am submitting to FAC again. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment — Could do with a few more linked words (I linked I/O and API) even though they may produce red links. More diagrams wouldn't hurt. Also, no external links? I know the Btrieve article has some but even so, are there no web pages out there that have information relating to the architecture?. Other than that I read it without my eyes drooping - which must be a good sign :) CheekyMonkey 12:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points - could I clarify which bits you think would be good to have diagrams for? This will give me a chance to make them... will link to the Btrieve website, however there really isn't much on the underlying architecture of Btrieve (its not as popular as, say, MS SQL Server - and rightly so IMO). Most of this is extracted from manuals but even more from Kyle's book! I am gratified to see that it's not too boring :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have wikilinked more words. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the Indexing section would benefit from a diagram. Other than that looking at the article again it's hard to see where else a diagram could go where it will successfully summarise the relevant paragraphs. Regarding external links, are there newsgroups / forums out there that deal with the architecture? CheekyMonkey 16:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, indexing now has a diagram! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, I think that's fair enough. Will look into creating some diagrams when I get the chance. Hopefully soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I now Support. CheekyMonkey 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't even really know what Btrieve is, so maybe I shouldn't vote, but the article looks sufficiently crufty, so I vote support. Everyking 12:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Btrieve is a database developed by Pervasive". Thanks for the support, I guess. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that didn't help me much. I mean, I get a general idea. But never mind. Everyking 00:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, not "never mind". Clearly you have something you want to say, so out with it man! I'm not sure what else you want us to explain: if your suggestion improves the quality of this article then, by gad, I'll do it! But the fact is that Btrieve is a database, and if the reader wants to know more then there is a wikilink to the main article. As for being crufty — tell me which bits are crufty and I'll rework the section or remove the bits from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Nah, I use "crufty" as a positive term—that's a compliment. I wasn't saying I thought the article needed to explain it better, I was saying that I don't understand it much myself, and I'm too lazy to try, but nevertheless on a cursory glance the article looks good. Everyking 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the Lead I would not mention Pervasive's unusual use of navigational database to describe their transactional ISAM-based architecture. I think that this is confusing although it merits mention later. I have also raised a number of questions as inline comments. --Theo (Talk) 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have fixed the lead section (clarified the issue) and have edited to resolve your comments. Cheers Theo :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The changes address all my issues but raise a new one! The clarification of the phrase navigational database is not best presented in the lead because it distracts the reader from more important matters. Could you move any mention of Pervasive's descriptions of their product and the consequent explanations to somewhere lower? --Theo (Talk) 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Cool... I was hesitant in making a new section as this doesn't really "fit" in any other section. I have decided that a new section actually was required and have shifted this info into that section. Look OK now? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The recent changes address all my concerns. --Theo (Talk) 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)