Talk:Comment (computer programming)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
{{subst:GASWeepsHold}}

I am concerned at the quality of some of the sources used in this article, for instance www.freshmeat.net.

This issue has been addressed. Cite removed, related content removed as redundant.

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.

This issue has been addressed. Lead section modified to incorporate former "Overview" section.

There appears to be a link to a blog at devbiz that is unavailable. Blogs cannot be considered reliable sources in any case.

This issue has been addressed. Cite removed, related content removed as under-developed and not likely to be expanded by future work on the article.

The image in the lead makes unexplained reference to prologue and inline comments.

There are far too many very short sections, such as Advertising in-code and Audio comments, many of them completely uncited.

This issue has been addressed. Both sections mentioned have been removed. If "far too many" refers to any section not yet addressed, please specify exactly which one(s).

The article does not explain that different programming languages have different syntaxes for comments.

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:

* 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.

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.

"This C code fragment demonstrates the use of a prologue comment or "block comment" ..." So which is it, a prologue comment, a block comment, or both? Why the scare quotes?

Comments in web templates; HTML is not a programming language, so why is this included?

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).

"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.

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).

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.

This issue has been addressed.

"Some contend that comments are often not necessary or unhelpful ...". Who are these anonymous "some"?

This issue has been addressed.

"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?

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.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]