Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I think this page is on the way. It it definitely long enough. It only has one or two lists, even though I think it could use more screenshots. I think it will be good to pass, but I want a second opinion.Cssiitcic (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not yet ready to pass GAN. There are many issues, the most obvious of which is the messy layout. Nearly every paragraph is a single sentence, and the information in the article is mostly boiled down to lists and tables, when prose would be better. In addition, none of the references are formatted correctly per WP:CITE/ES. I am failing this nomination to give the nominators time to work on these problems. I suspect that once the information flows better, it will actually be clear that the article could use more information. There should be more background information on the product's creation, etc. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the comments guy. I got a peer review a while back, and it noted that there was too much "techie" stuff in it. So, I created a couple new wikipedia articles and basically thinned the article, down to its bare bones, essentially creating one sentence paragraphs. How can I fatten the article again? TechOutsider (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Which articles did you split this article into? And regarding this, I have formatted the references for you. However, they might need to be cleaned up a bit, especially the publisher field; for instance, "Pcmag.com" should actually say "PC Magazine" (and it must be italicized as well, per MOS:TITLE). Gary King (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I can't thank you enough. Thanks!!!! I'll use your work as an example for my future edits :) TechOutsider (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]