Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spyware/archive1

Spyware

Review commentary

Message left at Fubar Obfusco. Daniel Case 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Malware and Computing. Sandy (Talk) 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after putting this here too soon after an embarassing turn on the Main Page, I followed the advice I was given and actually, I think, made some improvements to the article. I took advantage of the holiday to do a full copyedit which streamlined the prose and (at the time, at least), made the article 5K shorter. I found citations for most everything that was missing (the fact that I did this with simple Google searches makes me wonder why the original editors couldn't have tried harder). I think I cleaned up the POV issues with the Sony section.

However... there are still three things needing sourcing, and I think the article could use more illustrations. I am less sure it is no longer FA-quality now, but I'm only one pair of eyes. I think this deserves review as a matter of course. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments of my own. Due to its subject, the article is obviously prone to spam, which does create problems re stability. That can be contained, but just today an anon added two unsourced grafs which might be worth including. I don't have the time and I don't have the knowledge. If this is to stay featured, someone knowledgeable needs to stay on top of it.

I added a long comment at the head of the article just as a further warning to any spammers. Daniel Case 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also proposed that the programs mentioned in the "fake anti-spyware" programs be spun off into a separate list (with all entries citing sources) to cut the length down a bit. Daniel Case 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Mixed reference styles (please consistently use cite.php, which is the main method on the article), Section heading 4.1 Advertisements does not show in the TOC on my browser (I've encountered this issue on one article before, it was caused by some non-printable character), external jumps, potential external link farm, and lots of cite tags. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of notable programs needs to be prosified or removed. I suggest placing them in a history section of sorts, like "Adaware was first, then such and such followed." Lead paragraph screams for a citation. Hbdragon88 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, still has mixed reference styles, many tags, and imbedded links (external jumps). Sandy (Talk) 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Just too many concerns still remaining. Unless someone (not me) makes this article their personal responsibility and keeps it at a reasonable level, it cannot remain a featured article. Daniel Case 04:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Looks good to me, so why can't one of the contributors fix the referencing? Tony 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still needs more cites, so remove. LuciferMorgan 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Daniel. CG 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]