Talk:K-Meleon/GA3

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments The page passes muster in many respects with sources; I have not as yet checked them all. Where I see an immediate issue is WP:N. I downloaded it (not easy for WIndows users), then tested it on a standard Wikipedia link Adolf Matthias [de]. While it works, it does not translate the German page. It also does not seem to have (by default) standard features such as the ability to search within a page. I therefore have reservations at a more fundamental level with a GA nomination. I would like to see some serious justification, I do not see anything within the page itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 Some serious justification for what? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A high level of WP:N, as I indicated. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 I am afraid that I remain confused. Notability is handled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which allows for the participation of multiple editors. What part of the article do you feel falls short of Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Comments I am in two minds about nominating this article for WP:AfD, as I find it very hard to justify notability. The browser has been around for a long time, but while it might once have been competitive I cannot see any indications that it remains of significant major use that would justify WP:N, or WP:NSOFT. I will give the editors a chance to bring it into line and hold on making the nomination. As detailed below, there are numerous examples of self-published citations that should not be used except sparingly.

In terms of some of the GA criteria:

Well-written: OK, although I think the lead could have a few sentences at a lower level

References: A big problem. In my opinion citations 1-4, 13,14,16,18, 33,34,35,37,38,41,43,45,46 47,57,58,59,61,65,66,68,72,74,96-126 are not independent -- this is way too many. Previous reviews pointed to issues with references, so I started with the "7x releases" section to check a few, I have not checked everything, but reference 57 is circular; it uses an image of the K-Meleon page in PCWorld as a "reputable source"; Reference 58 just recites the changelog; I cannot verify reference 59 and 62 seems to be wrong

Broad in coverage: No, as it does not give much information beyond this software

Neutral: Since nothing else is mentioned, it is perhaps neutral Illustrated: Very little, which is surprising for a graphic browser.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.