Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Safari (web browser)/1

Safari (web browser)[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article, as it stands is just a somewhat promotional summary of the features and individual release of Safari.

There isn't any discussions of privacy violations, security exploits (or even for that matter Apple's work on trying to eliminate third-party cookies, the IndexedDB data leak, issues with ITP etc). There is legitimate criticism (and some positive commentary) from multiple fronts on how Apple develops Safari and the fact that it lags behind many other browsers by a large margin. However, non of this appears to be discussed in the article in depth. This imo fails GA #3a and GA #4.

Besides this, there are a few almost contentless sections ("ios versions","Continuity" etc) failing GA #3a, multiple citation needed templates, and a almost completely unreferenced "Payments from Google" section failing GA #2, and some malformed citations. Overall, I do not think this represents the best work we have, and thus would like to move to review the article's GA status (or atleast ask for the article to be improved). Sohom (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context on what I am talking about in paragraph 2:

- Discussion of ITP: [1][2][3][4][5]

- IndexedDB issues: [6][7][8]

- More discussion on the benefits of ITP: [9][10] [11] (and a bunch other which I can help idenitfy)

- Commentary on Safari's security issues and releases commentary: [12] (Safari here is refered to as Apple) [13] (coverage of security fixes in WebContent at the start, the rest of it is dense code, but still there is some interesting stuff in there) [14] (Safari's lack of features criticism) [15] (Blog post, but by a respected and well known figure) [16] (Blog post, but from a well respected figure in web standards tech) [17] (Petition to the UK Gov?) (there are more but there needs to be a effort to pick the wheat from the chaff, not completey ignore it) Sohom (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed on the talk page; I didn't think this met GA standards, and still don't. Your list of missing points is solid; to me the biggest missing point is Safari lagging behind in terms of web compatibility, and repeated bugs that have made it much harder for web developers to support Safari than other browsers (like several other IndexedDB issues and a localStorage bug). I'll try to work on this today. DFlhb (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would further agree. There is an overwhelming amount of short sections, a dearth of cited scholarly sources concerning this influential web browser, and a lack of information on how this browser was generally received by the public or commentators. I would agree this article is in even worse shape than Google Chrome by failing GA #3a, and due to this article's similar scale, would suggest a Delist as this may be too big of a fix for GAR alone and would need a complete re-write. The Night Watch (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the required changes would be too extensive not to go through a full GAN again - DFlhb (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original GA reviewer here: the Safari article was the GA review I did, but I didn't do it thorough enough in retrospect. Support delist for now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.