Talk:GNOME Web/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Epiphany (web browser)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Epiphany (web browser)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

:

class="wikitable"
! 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}}	{{GAHybrid/item|aye}}
(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}}	{{GAHybrid/item|aye}}

:

:

:

:

:

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 [http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/epiphany 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 — {{GAHybrid/item|aye}}Well 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)

{{Reflist}}