Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton Internet Security/archive4

Norton Internet Security[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just expanded the article significantly and want to apply for FA-status. There are some problems, however I am mainly concerned with the prose and organization.

Thanks, Tech Outsider 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Laser brain's comments

Thanks for requesting a peer review, TechOutsider. You have a good start here, but to be quite honest, this article needs quite a bit of work. At the minimum, and in this order, it requires:

Serious research of reliable sources to make it comprehensive. You've cherry-picked tidbits for each version, but you are missing serious information on the Issues/Problems and Reception for each release.
Evaluation of existing sources to ensure the best sources have been used. You've used some weak sources, such a blogs and fix-it forums to source important information where a print or web source with an organized publisher and editorial process are needed.
Research to find sources for various unsourced statements. Everything had to be sourced; it is not currently.
Finally, a thorough copyedit from someone with a strong command of English. The prose is, frankly, quite bad. This should be the last step.

Below I've listed some sample problems, but it is by no means a comprehensive list. It is something to get you started on a serious worklist for the article. I would rate it as a solid Start-class or weak B-class article at this time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The fair use rationale for your screenshots is extremely weak; it will not hold up at FAC. They illustrate the UI, but you don't actually discuss the UI in those sections. There would need to be critical commentary about the UI for those images to be appropriate.

Lead

Why the banner? It's software that's been out for many releases—just because further releases are forthcoming doesn't mean you need that giant banner at the top. That seems to be more for software that's not released at all.
The lead seems quite thin considering the length of the article. Recommend adding a concise release history and concise summary of critical reception, at the least.
The third para of the lead is overly technical and badly written. Build numbers in the lead? You have at least one wikilink to a dab page (Mac); terms like "runs on" are too colloquial; "Windows computer" is imprecise, as is "Mac computer" redundant. A Mac is a computer. Much better would be "Symantec produces versions of Internet Security for PCs running Windows or MacOS." That whole para is a re-write.

Body

"Norton's crossed-arm pose, a registered U.S. trademark, was featured on Norton product packaging. However, his pose was later moved to the spine of the packaging, and later dropped altogether." The one thing here you can cite to the source you used is that the pose is a trademark; the rest of it needs a different reliable source. This is also awkwardly written—it's strange to say his "pose" is featured and moved. Needs to be re-written to be closer to "the image of Norton's crossed-arm pose". Revise to eliminate the "later moved ... later dropped" redundancy.
The first paragraphs before we get into the version history are odd. You give a brief history of how Symantec acquired the brand, and then there is an out-of-place paragraph about how users can upgrade, but it only covers recent versions?
"Other functionalities include" No... not a word.
Overlinking is present. For example, double-linking of "ZDNet" and "spam" in the same paragraphs. At the same time, some technical terms such as "AtGuard from WRQ" (?) and "packet" are not linked.
"Adjusting the settings fixed the problem, however the process was complicated." What does this mean?
"Parental controls are backed by a quality control team of 10 searching the web for inappropriate content. Found content is categorized in subject matter and placed on a blacklist of about 36,000 sites." Present tense, so this is still true of version 1.0? The blacklist remains at 36,000 even with 10 people adding sites to it?
"A designed administrator can add blocked sites" Designed? Why would they add a site if it's blocked?
"Administrators can block certain subject matters." Grammar.
How is FBI Cooperation part of Reception?
Your other sections under Reception are more "Issues" than they are Reception. They are not comprehensive, since the information you included is limited only to certain versions. Where you have sources, they are sometimes poor; for example, you cannot source the blanket statement that "Norton Internet Security (Windows versions) is criticized for not uninstalling completely" to the "Ask Dave Taylor" site where the hypothetical question is asked.
You are lacking an true Reception section where consumer and critical opinions are aggregated for each release. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments. I am taking a Wikibreak currently. I will correct the problems as soon as I return next year. This is TechOutsider. 68.218.184.194 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]