Jump to content

Talk:Rust (programming language)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Article looks in reasonable shape. Some work required.

  • Lead
    • Last paragraph of the lead is not covered in the body. I would move all but the first sentence into the body.
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Evolution (2013–2019)
    • "Rust's object system, used for object-oriented programming" Hang on. You said in the lead that it was a functional language, not an object oriented one.
       Done by rewording it to type system. 0xDeadbeef
    • Combine the first two and last two paragraphs.
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
    • Link C++
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Mozilla Layoffs and Rust Foundation (2020–present)
    • Combine the first two and last two paragraphs.
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
    • The last two also need combining or folding in, but also require a bridge to avoid to sentences running starting with "On <date>..."
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Hello, World program
    • Should we mention that the bang indicates a macro instead of a function?
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Keywords and control flow
    • Might as well mention comments here as well, since you're using them
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Expression blocks
    • "if the semicolon is omitted, the last expression in the function will be used as the return value" The last expression, or the value of the last expression?
       Done. 0xDeadbeef
  • Components
    • Can we describe the standard library?
       Not done: I cannot find reliable sources that can provide a good summary of the standard library. 0xDeadbeef 17:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      McNamara, Tim (2021). Rust in Action (1st ed.). Manning Publications. ISBN 9781617294556. (already cited once in the article) says:
      "Sadly, though, Rust has a fairly tight standard library. As with regular expressions, another area with relatively minimalist support is handling command-line arguments." (p. 71)
      "Rust's standard library is comparatively slim. It excludes numeric types that are often available within other languages. These include: Many mathematical objects for working with rational numbers and complex numbers; arbitrary-size integers and arbitrary-precision floating-point numbers ... fixed-point decimal numbers for working with currencies" (p.43)
      "Rust's standard library tends to lack many things that other languages provide, like random number generators and regular expression support. That means it's common to incorporate third-party crates into your project." (p.67)
      I think it's alright to cite a primary source as well, i.e. [1]. And maybe it's worth noting that you can exclude std if desired. Ovinus (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Usually for things like programming languages and technology, primary sources are OK. Theres a guideline somewhere, I forget where it is, but I know the conesnsus is that its less strict then living people and historical events. Rlink2 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web browsers and services

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?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    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:
    Quite good. Putting on hold pending changes.
    Thank you, User:Hawkeye7, I suppose the use of WP:ABOUTSELF sources in the technical sections would not prevent it from passing the GA? Or is there a need to reference the book "The Rust Programming Language (Covers Rust 2018)" in addition? 0xDeadbeef 06:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ABOUTSELF only applies to biographies. Citing a book about the Rust programming language is precisely what is required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: I've responded to all points raised above, please take another look when you have time :) Thanks again. 0xDeadbeef 17:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks for the review! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good for GA. Great work. I made some (very) minor changes to resolve a disambig, suppress a warning (which most people would never see), reformat an ISBN (cosmetic) and reference an unreferenced sentence. There are a quite a few duplicated links; I wasn't sure how you feel about these. If you take it to FAC, anticipate some probing questions about your sources. A couple of suggestions, largely from my curiosity:

  • The example in the macros section does not show you how one is written
  • The standard library stands out as a possible area for expansion. Footnote 1 implies that it is anything but.
  • Note 5 does not say anything. Suggest removing it or folding it into a footnote.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rust_(programming_language)/GA1&oldid=1098233894"