Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Techman224^Talk 23:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good article?[edit]

Well-written: Y
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; Y and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Y ^[1]
Verifiable with no original research: Y
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;Y

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); Y^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research. Y
Broad in its coverage: Y
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Y ^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y^[4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y^[5]
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; Y and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Y ^[6]

This is what I will based this review on. Anything checked is fine. Techman224^Talk 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also saw the precious review, and requests of moves don't apply in Good Article reviews. Techman224^Talk 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found all the criteria in this article. Now since this is my first times reviewing a good article, I'm going to let someone else review it and see if I did it correctly. However, so far this article has done good. Techman224^Talk 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Next steps[edit]

First, thanks for the prompt GA review. So items not checked needs to be improved upon? TechOutsider (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of what needs to be fixed? TechOutsider (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that some sentences could be linked together, and could read smoother, but all over, it is a very good article. I'd say try and find somebody who knows quite a lot about this type of security (e.g. a person who has it installed and knows its workings) and see if anything has been missed out. Queenie 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision[edit]

This article is very good, and it meets the good article criteria. Now for some improvements, Queenie found some improvements that can be made, and you should continue to keep improving the article with the To-do list on the talk page. Also continue to bring in subject-matter experts to bring up the article up to A-class according to this. After it reaches A-class, go for featured status. Overall, this article meets the good article criteria, so I am going to promote it up to Good article status. Congratulations. Techman224^Talk 15:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to recommend that the reviewer review another article from WP:GAN, as we have a huge backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. Anyone's help would be appreciated of cource. Techman224^Talk 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article: Y Promoted

Thank you for your courteous, prompt, and insightful review. I will be looking into the backlog. TechOutsider (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]