Wikipedia:Featured article review/CPU cache/archive1

::Messages left at User talk:Fennec, Computing and Computer science. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does meet the FA criteria of 1]c) "Factually accurate" most, if not all of the claims made in this article are unreferenced, there are no reliable sources to check the accuracy of content against. Slowbro 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:After reading the original nomination, it appears that "Evaluating Associativity in CPU Caches" and "Cache Performance for SPEC CPU2000 Benchmarks" may be sources disguised as links. Pagrashtak 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::Still, a FA that's entire contents was sourced from two references?! no matter how realiable the sources are, and their authors, i still think this article is missing a reference or two, or 50. The article may as well just be a link to those documents. Slowbro 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Let us know when you find a factual problem. The {{tl|fact}} for the assertion that a 2Mb cache system will cost in four figures, which seems very likely to be true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:Suggested FA criteria concern is factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 08:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. Jay32183 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, lots of one-sentence paragraphs, listy prose, strange bolding and italics throughout (see WP:MOSBOLD), external jumps, and informal prose—{{color|green|At the far right, with cache size labelled "Inf", we have the compulsory misses. If we wish to improve a machine's performance on SpecInt2000, increasing the cache size beyond 1 MiB is essentially futile. That's the insight given by the compulsory misses.}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.