Talk:TempleOS/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

• "It was programmed with an original variation of C (named HolyC) in place of BASIC..." The idea of HolyC being "in place of" BASIC is not pursued/elaborated anywhere else in the article.

• "TempleOS was released as J Operating System in 2005, as TempleOS in 2013, and was last updated in 2017. It was received with largely favorable reviews in tech communities and Davis amassed a small online following"

• I see no indication of "largely favorable reviews" in the source cited in the lead. Though the reviews mentioned in this article are positive, this is not sufficient proof that the OS "received mostly favorable reviews" unless this is a specific quote in a reliable source that I missed (if not, then this is WP:NOR).
• I am not saying that Mitton's review was unfavorable, but he still writes that TempleOS was "often regarded as something to be mocked, ignored, or forgotten" and recognizes that "There are many bad things to be said about TempleOS, many aspects of it that seem poorly constructed or wouldn't work in the 'real world'." However, no discussion of the OS's shortcomings is seen anywhere in Critical reception, nor in the article besides a quote from Davis saying that the OS has "no networking or Internet support". Surely this is a turn-off for some reviewers regarding the OS's functionality? (Admittedly, I have been trying to find some reviews that discuss in depth the "hate" towards TempleOS implied by Mitton, but turned up empty handed. At worst, I guess we can add some of Mitton's reservations to Critical reception)
• Even the claim of "a small online following" can only be loosely inferred from Cecil (though Cassel seems to be a better source for this), and needs further elaboration in the body of the article (e.g. talk about the live streams).

• More about the OS's release history (besides just the name changes) can be discussed in the article (not just in the lead).

• "TempleOS is a 64-bit, non-preemptive multi-tasking, multi-cored, public domain, open source, ring-0-only, single address space, non-networked, PC operating system for recreational programming." This one sentence is quite overwhelming from a stylistic standpoint. Possible to break this up a bit by moving some aspects out of this topic sentence and moving them into later sentences in this section? Follow up: In the cited source, this appears to be a quote lifted directly from Davis without attribution.

• "The operating system includes an original flight simulator, compiler, and kernel." Not sure why the flight simulator is listed before compiler and kernel (which are more important to the OS, functionally speaking)

• I heard that there was a plethora of interesting features in TempleOS besides the flight simulator already mentioned in the article. For example, I see that algorithmic composition is listed in the See also, but the music composing tool is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Maybe discuss in depth some other aspects from the features listed on the templeos.holyc.xyz website (Wikipedia won't let me link it here, but it appears when googling "templeos features"). Not sure if there are many sources out there that go in this deep though.

• Unsure if the example generated text is necessary here, especially given the lack of detail on other aspects of the OS (don't want to place too much emphasis on one game). Maybe mention more games?

• "for example, a file can have a spinning 3D model of a tank as a comment in source code" Is this level of detail necessary? It doesn't even appear to be mentioned in the source.

• There are more screenshots of TempleOS available on WikiMedia Commons. You can include some to better illustrate the article if you believe they are relevant.

• The working state of TempleOS is listed as "finished", but as far as I can tell from the article, "discontinued" is probably a better characterization. Do we have a source for whether the OS is considered finished (in that Davis, before his death, considered the OS complete)?

• Reference review: I have some concerns over Mitton (source 11) since this appears to be a blog. Then again, comprehensive reviews of TempleOS are hard to come by, and Mitton does seem to have the credentials. Since it's only used once, could you find a more reliable substitution?

An interesting read—there are issues regarding both broad coverage and neutrality in this article, but the addition of a few sentences/sources regarding the OS's history, features, and reception should probably suffice. Besides these points, the prose is well-written and the article is well-cited. Putting this on hold until July 30. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been a week without any activity/response from the nominator, so I will be failing this nomination. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GeneralPoxter sorry for not fixing it on time. I'll work on it and do a re-nomination after I've fixed the issues in your review. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)