Talk:Norton Internet Security

 

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

What is a good article?

A good article is— </noinclude>

1. 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

2. 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 and

   (c) it contains no original research. Y

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Y and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

   (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

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.

 

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.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article.

Hopefully the review will begin soon. Thank you--Whiteguru (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made --Whiteguru (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Instructions: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

 

---

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Lede needs updating to indicate the current position of this software in the anti-virus market.
• Article is tagged for copy editing.
• Infobox is out of date;

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• article is tagged for examination of references, citing too many primary sources

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Article suffers from WP:PROSELINE, On Date X, Event Y happened.
• Article lists changes to software in each release.
• 2002 - 2012 releases have large slabs of text describing software content, functionality, beta tests, etc.
• 2013 - 2015, Macintosh Editions: there is a marked paucity of information with respect to these releases.
• Focus of the article is on new editions of software. Some consideration needs to be given to reversing the delivery with changes necessitated by operating systems, evolution of RAM capacity, and the prevailing virus environment.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• The content referring to FBI and Magic Lantern is not relevant to this article and can be trimmed back to a simple paragraph with the opening observation. The remainder of the text is not needed.
• Checking user talk pages, there is reference to information in Norton's user forums and a direct relationship between the material used here and the material on the Norton User forums. A possible COI may have existed with regard to the earlier content of this page.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• This page is under semi-permanent page protection due persistent vandalism.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• NIS2006.jpg = software screenshot …qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
• Norton Internet Security.png = software screenshot …qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
• Norton Internet Security 2011.jpg = is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. Fair use is claimed.

1. Overall:

• Article suffers from WP:PROSELINE, On Date X, Event Y happened. This matter needs resolution. Attention should also be given to reversing the content with changes necessitated by operating systems, evolution of RAM capacity, processor development and the prevailing virus environment. Primary sources should be resolved. Coverage of each release of this software should be balanced and not include every addition, every beta test result, every change in installation times. There should be commonality and balance in covering the releases. The COI gives rise to the possibility of WP:TNT, starting over again. Seven days. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Review Community Comment

Honestly, this should probably be delisted - Very significant work is needed. Significant uncited text is present. There is also a weighting issue - version before 2013 are described in great detail, while post-2013 ones have little detail. The criticism section makes it seem like post-2009 version of this software have no critics. Reference formatting errors. This needs a lot of work. Hog Farm _Talk 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hog Farm Thanks, Hog Farm. I have taken the long read through it and not exactly happy. However, have to follow the steps. Thanks for the heads up. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Legitimate concerns raised above were not addressed. Should editors seek another reassessment, the issues raised above need to be addressed first before a reassessment can be commenced. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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.