Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it needs general review.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Firstly, can I request you don't list too many articles at once for PR? You'll get plenty of comments on which you can act, so listing three or four at once is too much really. Anyway, specifics...

• The lead is too short, per WP:LEAD.
• Section headings should follow WP:HEAD.
• References, where applicable, should use the {{Cite web}} template rather than just raw URLs.
• Explain relevance/significance of "comp.os.minix" for non-experts.
• Avoid lists, use prose.
• Very few claims are cited. This article could do with serious citations.
• " Ultimately, it is likely that such questions can only be resolved by a court." reads like pure original research.
• Trademark section entirely unreferenced.
• Place citations per WP:CITE.
• Kernel Panic or Kernel panic? Be consistent.
• Version numbering section is virtually unreferenced and has an in-line citation which should be avoided.
• "maybe others" ?! Citation or original research again.
• Sort out the "cleanup" tagging.
• After 2.6.16, cite the maintainers.
• You have a redlinking "See also". Write the stub, at least.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply