Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/CPU cache/archive1
Just stumbled across this- it's got pretty pictures, it goes into detail, the terminology isn't too bad (and there's a quite readable intro...) - very good work. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Nice article. I do not object, but for me to support I'd like a more concise lead-section (redistribute superfluous information into another section(s)) - ensuring the leadsection appropriately conveys the concept to a layman; a more aesthetic image in the lead section; and better paragraphing. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Tell me how to fix that image and I'll do it. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - if lead section were reduced to 3 paragraphs. --d 00:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - cool article! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Support - some of it seems wordy and technical, but it's still a very good article with great information. -- KneeLess 07:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The technical bit is deliberate. If things seem wordy, just let me know, and I'll take another whack at it. Overall, I think the article needs a good hard round of criticism before it's ready for prime-time. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Under "More hierarchies" the article reads "This section should be rewritten." Presumably it should be, or the notice removed. Dan Gardner 17:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've got quite a bit to do in that section, but other commitments... you know. I'm hoping to fix this bit in a month or so. Iain McClatchie 18:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I skimmed it and it looks good, but Dan Gardner makes a valid point - any little to-do notes need to be taken out of the article. Generally speaking, meta data doesn't belong in the article. →Raul654 04:44, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Object - no references. --mav 00:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree, certainly there are more and better standard references in the field than the two external links in the article now. Lack of solid references means the material could have been made up out of thin air, and thus unreliable. In addition the lead section needs to be reworked to carry all the most important information about the subject in a clear way. The simple fact of why cache is faster is never noted. - Taxman 16:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, so you want to repeat the introduction from Cache? -- Iain McClatchie 15:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree, certainly there are more and better standard references in the field than the two external links in the article now. Lack of solid references means the material could have been made up out of thin air, and thus unreliable. In addition the lead section needs to be reworked to carry all the most important information about the subject in a clear way. The simple fact of why cache is faster is never noted. - Taxman 16:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)