Talk:GNOME Web/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

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

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

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

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Please expand the lead to WP:LEAD standards. "...developers believed that Galeon still wasn't feature complete. At the same time..." I do not understand the bold part of the text.  Done Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore).  Done I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.  Done "Epiphany's main goal is to be integrated with the gnome desktop. We dont aim to make epiphany usable outside Gnome. If someone will like to use it anyway, it's just a plus. Ex: Making people happy that don't have control center installed is not a good reason to have mime configuration in epiphany itself." Please fix all the contractions, capitalisations etc.  Done There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. is considered might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).  Done	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore).  Done I have spotted the following contractions: Don't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.  Done Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.  Done There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. is considered might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).  Done	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is not adequately cited. Please cite all non-cited material.  Done Examples: "In reviewing Epiphany in July 2010 Jack Wallen described it as "efficient, but different" and noted its problem with crashes." "In March 2011 Veronica Henry reviewed Epiphany, saying "To be fair, this would be a hard sell as a primary desktop browser for most users. In fact, there isn’t even a setting to let you designate it as your default browser." "In reviewing the Webkit-powered Epiphany 2.28 in September 2009, Paul Ryan of Ars Technica said "Epiphany is quite snappy in GNOME 2.28 and scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test." All that needs to be referenced, and more.  Done The first paragraph of 'Galeon fork' has only 2 references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP.  Done The last paragraph of 'WebKit-based' has no references. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP.  Done 'Release history': All the dates and descriptions have to be referenced. Please reference the unreferenced material ASAP.  Done Please reference 'Bookmarks'.  Done 'Modularity' table needs to be referenced.  Done	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	One external link is a dead link, please fix it or remove it.  Done	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	There should be a section dedicated to 'System requirements'. Remember that there are 32-bit systems and 64-bit systems.  Done	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes

Result

When the article is adequately referenced, I can say the article is neutral.  Done There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. is considered might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	On hold for 7 days. Well done on bringing Epiphany (web browser) to the GA Standards!

Discussion

Feel free to ask me questions if there is a need for that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for this great work! I have several comments and questions right now:

• 1(a)4, 1(b)2:  Fixed
• 1(a)5: it is a citation. Aren't we supposed to preserve them in their exact form?  Done
• 1(a)6, 1(b)4, 4.2.: there are two occurrences of "is considered" in the article: one in citation, another is referenced. Any suggestions? Then it is  Done.
• 2(a): the Reception section is organised on paragraph per review basis. Each paragraph is followed by a reference to the actual review. Do You think the reference should be duplicated after other citation throughout paragraphs?
• 2(b):  Fixed

My knowledge doesn't allow me to address properly issues 1(a)3 and 1(b)1, hope someone could help me with that.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I have yet more questions:

• What should be stated about system requirements?
  • Epiphany doesn't have any official hardware requirements, so should I omit them or should I hunt for the requirements of its dependencies? The only thing I've found by now is "Computers purchased in the last 4 or 5 years should be more than capable of running GNOME 3."
  • As Epiphany is part of GNOME desktop, it doesn't have separate dependencies. Should I provide a list of software needed to be installed to run Epiphany? If so, can I use a build script as a reference?

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

1a3/1b1 is that it follows WP:ENGVAR, you can add ANYTHING about the system requirements as long as its referenced with a reliable source. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the current open issues' status:

• 1(a)1, 1(b)3:  Fixed, waiting for comments.
• 1(b)2:  Fixed.
• 1(a)3, 1(b)1:  Fixed by Ahunt.
• 2(a)1: references are given at the end of paragraph; waiting for comments.
• 3(a)1:  Fixed, waiting for comments.
• 4: I don't see why it still fails...

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the minor changes needed for the other stuff, now only the lede, or 1a1/1b3, needs to be expanded. I'll guess that about 3,000-4,000 characters should do the trick for an article of this size. Good luck! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I extedned the lead to 1352 characters (1838 including infobox). I can't think of anything to add there without damaging the article. I did some math: the lead in this article is 10,7% of article's length, which is greater then 2,29% of Firefox (former FA), 4,96% of Google Chrome and 5,96% of Internet Explorer. MOS:LEAD says that lead is an article's summary, so the ration comparison should be pretty fair. Are You sure this article really needs 3000-4000 chars of lead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is supposed to summarise the article, so it is fine now... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Uodated status:

• 2(a)2 The whole paragraph retells reference #3 in short. No unreferenced material.
• 2(a)3 I accidentally missed this paragraph in November's cleanup. It describes the events of several years ago, a lot has changed since. Just removed —  Fixed.
• 2(a)4  Fixed.
• 2(a)5  Fixed.
• 2(a)6 It is already referenced in paragraph right above the table. The ref contents the commented list.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

PASS — PassWell done on bringing this article to the GA Standards! Hope you'll be available for the December 2011 Good Article Nominations Backlog Elimination Drive! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 16:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)