Talk:Cello (web browser)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The article needs a thorough copyedit. I went through a few sections and cleaned it up, but there is still a lot more that needs work (beyond the point where I would still be a neutral party reviewing the article).

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

I am concerned about the use of lists in the features section. Many of the features, including supported protocols, etc., would better be shown in prose. Some of the features also warrant discussion: How widely used was Gopher+ at the time? How did it handle "mailto" without a standardized email client interface on the OS? How was it extensible? All of these would be able to be addressed if the features were in prose instead of a raw list.

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Very well referenced

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

In-line citations are appropriate

(c) it contains no original research

No evidence of original research

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

I am concerned with some of the topics not being discussed. Why did development cease? How did it compare to other (non-free) browsers at the time? The criticism section is really just a list rather than a discussion of the criticisms that were received; how were these criticisms responded to? These are the types of things that a reader might want to know upon coming here. I don't disagree that this is quite a historical browser; for this very reason, it is critical that this information be supplied in the article.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

OK

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Both criticisms and claims to fame are addressed, well balanced.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

Images are non-free, but have valid rationales and are appropriate for the article

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Images are relevant, but I think the splash screen may be overkill. That's open to debate, though.

General comments

This article can be great. In particular, the fact that there are so many references available makes the potential of this article very high (I feel it can hit featured article some day). Unfortunately, today is not that day. The article needs a copyedit, but first it can benefit from significant expansion in some area. It needs discussion of the features and criticisms as well as commentary on impact on the community. Yes, it was a big deal for lawyers, that was addressed well (though it could probably use its own section). What about other domains? These are the kinds of things an editor reading a quality article will want to see. With those concerns addressed I think this will be a clear candidate for a good article.

Overall

Based off the concerns above, I feel there is too much work to be done to warrant placing this article on hold right now, so I will have to fail it. However, I will be more than happy to review this article again when the above concerns are addressed, whether it takes a day, a month, or a year. I really want to see this become a good article, but it just needs some more work still.

Lead section

I'm not too good with rewriting technical articles...but I've attempted a lead section rewrite as follows:

Cello was an early shareware 16-bit multipurpose web browser for Windows 3.1 developed by Thomas R. Bruce of the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. It was the first web browser written for Microsoft Windows. Cello also featured a Gopher client and supported FTP, SMTP mailing, Telnet, HyTelnet Usenet, WAIS, TechInfo, Archie, X.500,and TN3270 protocols.

Cello was created because, at the time, most lawyers used the Microsoft Windows operating system, but the web browsers available were for Unix operating systems. This meant that legal information on the World Wide Web was inaccessible to legal experts using Microsoft Windows. Thomas R. Bruce who cofounded the Legal Information Institute which created the first legal website recognized this problem and set out to devolp Cello.

Cello was first publicly released on June 8, 1993. Although a version 2.0 had been announced, development was abandoned prior to a public release leaving version 1.01a, released on April 16, 1994, to be the last version. Since then, the Legal Information Institute has licensed out the Cello 2.0 source code which has been used to develop commercial software.

Cello was popular during 1993/1994, but fell out of favor following the release of Mosaic and Netscape, during which development was abandoned. At its peak, 500 copies of Cello were being downloaded daily and it had a user base of 150,000 users.

Although the browser is no longer available from its original homepage, it can still be downloaded from mirror sites. The browser, however, will not work with most modern websites because of its limited HTML support. In addition, the DNS protocol has since changed which means that Cello cannot locate most websites.

I'm not sure if its any better than the current lead...thanks for the review btw=D.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)