Talk:K-Meleon/GA3
GA Review
{{atopr
| status =
| result = Unsuccessful. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
}}
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Overall comments The page passes muster in many respects with sources; I have not as yet checked them all. Where I see an immediate issue is WP:N. I downloaded it (not easy for WIndows users), then tested it on a standard Wikipedia link {{ill|Adolf Matthias|de|Adolf Matthias (Elektrotechniker)}}. While it works, it does not translate the German page. It also does not seem to have (by default) standard features such as the ability to search within a page. I therefore have reservations at a more fundamental level with a GA nomination. I would like to see some serious justification, I do not see anything within the page itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:@Ldm1954 Some serious justification for what? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::A high level of WP:N, as I indicated. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:::@Ldm1954 I am afraid that I remain confused. Notability is handled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which allows for the participation of multiple editors. What part of the article do you feel falls short of Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Overall Comments
I am in two minds about nominating this article for WP:AfD, as I find it very hard to justify notability. The browser has been around for a long time, but while it might once have been competitive I cannot see any indications that it remains of significant major use that would justify WP:N, or WP:NSOFT. I will give the editors a chance to bring it into line and hold on making the nomination. As detailed below, there are numerous examples of self-published citations that should not be used except sparingly.
In terms of some of the GA criteria:
Well-written: OK, although I think the lead could have a few sentences at a lower level
References: A big problem. In my opinion citations 1-4, 13,14,16,18, 33,34,35,37,38,41,43,45,46 47,57,58,59,61,65,66,68,72,74,96-126 are not independent -- this is way too many.
Previous reviews pointed to issues with references, so I started with the "7x releases" section to check a few, I have not checked everything, but reference 57 is circular; it uses an image of the K-Meleon page in PCWorld as a "reputable source"; Reference 58 just recites the changelog; I cannot verify reference 59 and 62 seems to be wrong
Broad in coverage: No, as it does not give much information beyond this software
Neutral: Since nothing else is mentioned, it is perhaps neutral
Illustrated: Very little, which is surprising for a graphic browser.
{{abot}}