Talk:Aspect weaver/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"An aspect weaver is a metaprogramming utility designed to take instructions specified by aspects (isolated representations of a significant concepts in a program) in aspect-oriented languages in an effort to generate the final implementation code. " - repetition of "in"
Done Addressed --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "advice" and why is it italicised?
Done? advice is the technical term for instructions to an aspect weaver. I have clarified that in the lede. Do you think this is ok? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"business-related concerns. Businesses are often concerned " -repetition
"often both an expense both money-wise and time-wise" - repetition
"Primary concerns for roadmaps for the adoption of new technologies tends" - repetition. Also, "concerns" is plural while "tends" is singular.
"This enforces that any existing object-oriented code will " - enforces/ensures.
Done all of the above --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link aspect-orientated and object-orientated programming.
Semi-done Did the OOP link. AOP is linked in the lede. Should it be linked here too? I thought things should only be linked the first time they are encountered. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Take Court of Chancery for example; a reader cannot be expected, 2/3rds of the way down, to know what equity is. I appreciate that your article is smaller, but the same logic applies; having to scroll up and search for a term (or just use the search box, taking them away from the article) vexes people. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Very logical, I was just unsure --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link "classes", "aspects", "bytecode". Remember, the audience is made up of laypeople.
All of these are linked in the lead. Again, should they be linked here as well, or only the first time they are encountered? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
concepts? Surely "concept"
Done That segment was poorly worded anyway. I rephrased it, and the word "concept" disappeared. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]