Talk:Norton 360/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review

Hi, this is my first GAR, but I'll do my best. When I conclude the review I will probably ask another reviewer for a second opinion.

The article does not have serious issues that justify a quick-fail.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Overall good, but a think a few issues need addressing. They are listed below.

   B. MoS compliance:

   • I think the lead is a little too long for an article of this length. Perhaps make a general chapter before the versions which expands a little on some of the info currently in the lede, and make the lede more concise.Some of the cites from "pcmag.com" say "PC Magazine" (should be italicized), but others say "Ziff Davis...". How come? Done--Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   • I didn't see a direct cite for Windows 7 support.  Done

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • Satisfactory. Expansion wouldn't hurt, but I think it is sufficient.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Looks balanced.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   • I think the image is a little too wide, but that's just personal opinion. Another screenshot in the article body wouldn't hurt, and should not violate the non-free content policy.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   • On hold pending improvements.

   • Will conclude at the end of the week. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific comments on prose:

Genesis: I think the first sentence should briefly introduce Thompson, even if he is bluelinked. The second paragraph ends rather abruptly. Done

• Yes, this looks ok now. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.0: There is a sudden shift in tense when you begin to describe the features. Was this intentional? The latter half of the third paragraph overuses "noted" ("review x noted ..."). This should be easy to fix. Done

• Ok. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"allowing half of the spam e-mail in the inbox"..to what? I believe the intended meaning was that only half of the incoming spam mail was blocked, but the way it was written I think it is slightly ambiguous. Done

• I rewrote this slightly, but couldn't find it in the actual review. Is there a cite for this? decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Version 2.0: Typo in second sentence. I find that the repeated use of "now", makes the prose a little repetitive Done

• Ok. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Version 3.0: Two consecutive sentences start with "Safe Web...". I found "Safe Web color codes..." a little confusing because I didn't immediately recognize "[to] color code" as a verb. In the last p., the significance of the support session, and which issue would be addressed was unclear. Done

• Ok. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am of course watching this, but if you have specific comments or questions do not hesitate to leave a message or {{tb}} on my talk page. decltype (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: please leave a checkmark or a comment to show which issues you have addressed. That would make it a lot easier. decltype (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. TechOutsider (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that work has been done to improve this. I would still like to see the lede changed, though. I will conclude the review by the end of the week. decltype (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed the history paragraph in the lead, addressing the point immediately, without unnecessary length. TechOutsider (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the history from the lead, shortening it considerably. I think the history belong to the body of the sentence not the lead. In my opinion, the lead should only introduce the product as it is.--Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done a brief ce. The only problem I can see is that there is a fact tag in the article. decltype (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done; Thank you for the comment. TechOutsider (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)