I intend to candidate this article for featured status. I know it's slightly too technical for being featured on the main page, but I think it is sufficiently complete and accessible to have featured status. It is already listed at WP:GA.
Note: this article details only the core protocol. General information about X Window is in X Window System (already FA) while information about architecture and other protocols is in X Window System protocols and architecture ( WP:GA) - Liberatore( T) 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The organization of headers needs work. The diagrams are good, but there is no depiction of the overall protocol like I would expect, even if only a flow diagram. I think some of the sections could be moved around- like, why is Extensions way down at the bottom? For a FA, this would need better citing of sources and linking as well. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I like the idea of a diagram for the overview of the protocol (it's quite straighforward, but a diagram may be useful to clarify that it's straighforward). I will also change reference to fa-style, and see if I can add some links.
- As for the order of the sections, this one is motivated by having a realistic example as soon as possible, and because extensions are somehow "outside" the core protocol. Any suggestion as for a different order of sections? - Liberatore( T) 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I intend to candidate this article for featured status. I know it's slightly too technical for being featured on the main page, but I think it is sufficiently complete and accessible to have featured status. It is already listed at WP:GA.
Note: this article details only the core protocol. General information about X Window is in X Window System (already FA) while information about architecture and other protocols is in X Window System protocols and architecture ( WP:GA) - Liberatore( T) 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The organization of headers needs work. The diagrams are good, but there is no depiction of the overall protocol like I would expect, even if only a flow diagram. I think some of the sections could be moved around- like, why is Extensions way down at the bottom? For a FA, this would need better citing of sources and linking as well. -- maru (talk) contribs 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I like the idea of a diagram for the overview of the protocol (it's quite straighforward, but a diagram may be useful to clarify that it's straighforward). I will also change reference to fa-style, and see if I can add some links.
- As for the order of the sections, this one is motivated by having a realistic example as soon as possible, and because extensions are somehow "outside" the core protocol. Any suggestion as for a different order of sections? - Liberatore( T) 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)