Talk:Fedora Project

Red Hat/Fedora Linux Community Reaction

The following is biased and difficult to prove as fact.

• The discontinuation of Red Hat Linux in favor of Fedora Core caused a controversy in the Linux community. Many thought that Red Hat was simply dropping its established user base and moving on to the enterprise market, leaving existing users with no upgrade option. The situation has since become somewhat less confused, although this misconception is still common amongst some.

1. "Many thought" is a weasel phrase.
2. "The situation has since become somewhat less confused" Has it? Who thinks so and why?
3. "This misconception" Is it a misconception? Amongst some... who is some?

The above paragraph should be redone, so that it shows how the RedHat distribution worked before and after the Fedora change. It should try to state facts.

Article needs improvement

As shown in the WikiProject Linux page, this article should be improved. It needs considerable work and must be promoted to a B-class article. Pmlinediter (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fedora Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWOAP (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Passed GA

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This Article meets GA Status. --MWOAP (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I believe I have addressed each discrepancy noted above. Please let me know if you feel other changes should be made. These were good catches... Thank you! --W4otn (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fedora Project/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

General reassessment comments

Following this article's recent GA assessment, I was concerned that it may not meet the GA criteria. I raised these issues with the GA reviewer, who has indicated that they missed issues in the review, and have agreed that it needs reassessing. See User_talk:MWOAP#Fedora_Project_GA_review. The following issues were the ones I identified at the time:

• Most of the (very few) references in the article are to internal company or project sources and may not meet either reliability criteria, or be considered independent of the subject.
• The bulk of the article comprises embedded lists, which are not ideal for the nature of the article. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:EMBED.
• Much of the list material reads like promotional text for the Fedora Project (for example "Printing to create a good printing experience on Fedora")
• Almost nothing in the "Subprojects & Special interest groups" section is referenced, and there is no indication why any of the detailed information is in any way notable.

The referencing of the article as a whole is so marginal that the subject might not even meet Wikipedia's criterion of notability: I am presuming that further work by editors may deal with this problem. Nevertheless, the article will need significant revision and improvements in the quality of citations for it to pass. As I also suggested in the course of discussion, it might also be preferable for it to be merged into Fedora (operating system) or Red Hat, however i don't have a strong opinion on this. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this artcile is nowhere near GA status at the moment. Is the original nominator prepared to work on it? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A message has been left for the original nom. I'll wait and see what happens. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to work on this to bring it up to where it should be. I don't necessarily agree with some of the comments in the re-assessment, however. There aren't any promotional texts in the article as the article doesn't show that the Fedora Project is promoting themselves over others. The Printing SIG is simply doing just that, working to create a good printing experience on Fedora. That's not competition, that working to bring things up to a standard. I'll work on adding links. All the information I provided came from the Fedora Project website. --W4otn (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be good to see the article improve, but the fact that the info is coming from the Fedora Project website is part of the problem. The article will need stronger independent / third party referencing to be a GA. Also have a look at the link about embedded lists. And think about notability - is information being included in thisd page that does not really add to an encyclopedia article, but is best left to be found on the project website (which will be an external link at the end of the page) by interested readers? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I could see removing the list of SIGs... I really don't think that information is necessary or needed. Any other suggestions? --W4otn (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree re the SIGs. But my first concern, regarding the lack of third-party independent refs remains a big issue. As i already commented, they are so limited here, I don't know if the article would even pass a deletion discussion on notability grounds at present. Also not sure the slashdot ref is acceptable as a reliable source. I'm assuming refs exist somewhere and I'm certainly not suggesting I or anyone else take this to AfD, but the article has a way to go in this regard. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't progressing, so i will delist for now. Good luck with improving the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous Project

There was a short previous incarnation of the Fedora project:

• Archived version of the homepage
• "Fedora Community Proposal v0.0.2" from there

IIRC, RedHat wanted to make its own community project. Merjing with the existing Fedora project seemed like a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzafrir (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Found a slightly better source in a slightly newer version of that page. Big thanks to the Internet Archive :-) Tzafrir (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Significant update requested

This article could use a lot of work. However, as current Fedora Project Leader, I have a significant conflict of interest. :)

1. Contributor numbers could be updated from https://mattdm.org/fedora/2016flock/StateofFedoraAugust2016-v160731a.pdf
2. It would be nice to have some mention of Mission, Vision, and Foundations -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
3. We have much more interesting history than one security intrusion many years ago. For example, development of the new mission and vision statements in 2010 and update from original mission
4. In addition to the Fedora operating system and its editions, we also produce EPEL
5. The Governance section could be expanded to talk about technical governing committee FESCo, the ambassador's steering committee FAmSCo, and etc., and in general about our structure around Working Groups and SIGs.
6. In addition to FUDCon, we also have Flock https://flocktofedora.org/ -- the events section could discuss that and the history of FUDCons, as well as Fedora Activity Days

Matthew Miller (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I got through the majority of these however I'm unfamiliar with and found nothing on working groups/SIGs with a cursory examination of your site, so if you'd like more on that please provide a link. Otherwise I believe I covered all of the necessary updates. Mehmuffin (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)