Talk:Google Chrome/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Issues:

  • Lede: The lede is very too small. Please, summarize the full article, for every section
  • Do Not Track: Is in need of expanding
  • Malware blocking: This section is out-of-date. Please update it
  • Usage: Chrome overtook Firefox in November 2011. As of May 2012, StatCounter measured Chrome and MSIE at roughly 32% usage share each, with Firefox at 26%. the third reference after shouldn't be spaced. That is Ref. 224
  • References: Ref. 4, 149 - Isn't a good source
  • References: Ref. 19 - Should be Google Blog as the publisher
  • References: Ref. 43, 54 - Googlechromereleases.blogspot.com should be Google Chrome Blog
  • References: Ref. 59 - chrome.blogspot.com should be Chrome Blog
  • References: Ref. 73 - chrome.blogspot.com.au should be Chrome Blog Australia
  • References: Ref. 94 - Ref. 94 is a dead link. See here.
  • References: Ref. 123 - Ref. 123 needs an accessdate. See here.
  • References: Ref. 132 - Ref. 132 is a dead link. See [1].
  • References: Ref. 139 - Ref. 139 is a dead link. See here.
  • References: Ref. 141 - Ref. 141 is a dead link. See here.
  • References: Ref. 145 - Ref. 145 is a dead link. See here.
  • References: Various - Missing publishers

On hold for now. TBrandley 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Patched ref issues (diff). Any other glaring problems before I start on the prose? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
No. TBrandley 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. For a start:

  • The are a lot of short paragraphs, mostly three sentences long; and single paragraph sections /subsections.
  • There are "direct quotations" with no citations, for example: two in History, the first paragraph in Development, several in Release channels and updates, one in Retina screen support, two in Usage,
  • Ref 226 is using wikipedia as a reference.
  • Some of the references are blogs, which brings into question as to whether they are WP:RS, arguably some are as they are official company blogs, but are all of them reliable?
  • Its already stated above that there are references with missing published, some of them have named authors and those are missing as well, for example 17, 40, 46, etc.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No issues have been addressed for a while now. I'll have to fail this nomination. Sorry! Please re-nominate after those above concerns have been addressed. TBrandley 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.