Content deleted Content added
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5:
*I am concerned at the quality of some of the sources used in this article, for instance www.freshmeat.net.
::
*As the lead is supposed to be an overview and a summary of the article I do not see the need for a separate Overview section immediately following it. Whatever is important in this section should be incorporated into the lead.
::
*There appears to be a link to a blog at devbiz that is unavailable. Blogs cannot be considered reliable sources in any case.
::
*The image in the lead makes unexplained reference to prologue and inline comments.
Line 19:
*There are far too many very short sections, such as Advertising in-code and Audio comments, many of them completely uncited.
::
*The article does not explain that different programming languages have different syntaxes for comments.
:: <font color="orange">This assessment appears to be incorrect and a non-issue. There is an entire Wikipedia article that both explains this fact and enumerates different syntaxes in exhaustive detail. Moreover, this particular article includes in relevant part:</font>
<font color="orange">
:: * The typographical conventions for specifying comments varies widely.
:: * Main article: Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Comments (a cross-reference to the syntax differences article)
:: * The syntax and rules [are] usually defined in a programming language specification.
</font>
*If the categorisation of comments into prologue, inline, end-of line et al is significant, then it should be properly inroduced early in the article.
Line 28 ⟶ 36:
*Comments in web templates; HTML is not a programming language, so why is this included?
<font color="orange">
:: 1) HTML is not a programming language, however from an editorial standpoint, it is not unreasonable to treat HTML comments, markup language comments, configuration file comments and other such concepts as indistinct from those of programming languages.
:: 2) HTML comments routinely appear inside JSP (Java), ASP (VBscript, Javascript), ColdFusion and many other programming languages, and consequently it is a common requirement to know the correct syntax for both kinds of comments even in the context of a programming language (this assertion is supported by cited references in the article).
</font>
*"In between these views is the philosophy that comments are neither beneficial nor harmful by themselves ..." The word "philosophy" is being abused in this article. These are opinions, not philosphies.
:: <font color="orange">This issue has been addressed. The word philosophy, (which appeared only once in the prose of the article as far as I could see) was replaced with "assertions" (which are supported by references).</font>
*Potentially significant sections such as Metadata and annotations (which is completely uncited) do not adequately cover their topic, thus not meeting the GA broadness criterion.
:: <font color="orange">This issue has been addressed.</font>
*"Some contend that comments are often not necessary or unhelpful ...". Who are these anonymous "some"?
:: <font color="orange">This issue has been addressed.</font>
*"Comments are often employed for these and related methods because they allow the use of syntax and lexical conventions that might otherwise conflict with those of the enclosing programming language. This is another sense in which it is helpful that compilers and interpreters "ignore" comments." If this is "another sense", then what was the first sense?
:: <font color="orange">This issue has been addressed. The prose in question was a vestige of an article discussion issue from over a year ago that had not been removed from the article.</font>
--[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||