Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid2/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 09:16, 23 August 2008 [1].

Acid2[edit]

Nominator(s): Remember the dot (talk)
previous FAC (00:07, 17 May 2008)


This article has grown quite a bit since its last nomination, and now includes quite a bit more explanation and prose. I think it may be ready to be listed as a featured article - what do you think? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Meets all the criteria ffm 15:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Two minor ideas for improvement: —This is part of a comment by Nihiltres (of 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
    1. The two images near the top of, respectively, Ian Hickson and the buggy test version, are quite close together and look a little awkward (independently of screen resolution). Is there any way that we can improve the layout with regard to this without sandwiching the content between two images?
      • I've moved the image of Ian Hickson to the left, with the buggy test version to the right and farther down. Does that look a little better to you? —Remember the dot (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Section order might be improvable: why is the order "compliant apps, non-compliant apps, timeline of passing apps"? This seems awkward as it sandwiches the non-compliant apps between the compliant apps and the timeline of passing apps. I'd understand if this is not fixable however as other orders might be similarly awkward, especially given the tabular form of the timeline section.
      • The timeline is really long and I suspect most readers simply don't care about it. It's more of an appendix to the article; the "Compliant applications" and "Non-compliant applications" sections are much more interesting and relevant to the reader and so they are given first. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds like a good explanation; it's probably the best order that can be managed, in that case. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's most of my nitpicking; this is a good article. These concerns are minor and aesthetic and shouldn't, in my opinion, justify not listing this article as featured. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All my comments have been addressed. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Yohhans (talk · contribs)
    • Multiple wikilinks for the same term aren't necessary. Just a quick glance shows that CSS, HTML and Web Standards Project are linked multiple times.
      • I thought the rule of thumb was to link unfamiliar terms once per section because users might be jumping around. I don't think the article goes overboard with wikilinks, but if you see some that you think are truly excessive then by all means let's discuss it some more. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the vein of wikilinks, links to Smiley and fallback are not necessary. Neither are obscure enough to merit a link (nor do they contribute to the article).
    • Looking at the previous FAC, I see there were differences in opinion in regard to the article being too list-y. I think some lists are appropriate in certain places, and not in others. For instance, "Passing conditions" can (and should) be easily converted to prose. "Overview of standards tested" can also easily be converted to prose. Similarly, I do not think that the "Compliant applications" can (or should) be converted to prose. I think that it would do better as a table though.
    • This is because Opera Mini intentionally reformats web pages to try and make them more suitable for devices with small screens.[27][19][28] - Reorder references so that they are in numerical order. [27][19][28] --> [19][27][28] Same with here: Ian Hickson, now of Google, coded the actual test in collaboration with the Web Standards Project and the larger web community.[4][3][5][6]
    • The article mentions its predecessor Acid1, but not its successor, Acid3. Why?
      • I've added a brief introduction to Acid3, feel free to improve. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's good as it is. I just felt that it should at least get a mention. - Yohhans (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the caption of the picture of Hickson, it says he is the author. Yet, in the prose, it is stated that the test was developed by Lie with the help of Hickson. Something needs to be reworded.
      • The first draft was created by Lie and Hickson together. Read down to the paragraph below: "Ian Hickson, now of Google, coded the actual test in collaboration with the Web Standards Project and the larger web community." —Remember the dot (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ian Hickson, now of Google, ... - awkward phrasing; how about "Ian Hickson, a current employee of Google, ...."
    • In July 2005, Chris Wilson, the Internet Explorer Platform Architect responded by calling Acid2 a "wish list" of features and said that while the test was important to Microsoft, Acid2 compliance was not a priority for Internet Explorer 7.[9] Microsoft later joined other browser makers and Internet Explorer 8 is expected to pass the test. - This is quite a jump. Is there a reason why Microsoft decided to follow the lead of Webkit, Gecko, et al.?
      • Well, Microsoft initially wasn't going to have Internet Explorer 8 pass by default. They were going to support the standards, but only if a proprietary HTTP header or <meta> tag was added to the page ([2], 19 minutes and 15 seconds through). Then Microsoft had a change of heart and decided to apply the more standards-compliant page handling by default ([3]). We can only guess why. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. I was just curious. I was hoping maybe you had information on that front. Although I have my own theories.... I think the IE teams thought process went something like the following: "Pfft. Who cares about them and their standards compliance. We have usability! Ok, that's not true, but we're still number one! (two years later) Uh Oh... Guys... Safari and Firefox are stealing our market share! Maybe this standards compliance thing is actually pretty important." - 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Acid2 tests a variety of web standards related to HTML, the language in which web pages are written, and Cascading Style Sheets, the preferred way to specify the format, style, and layout of HTML - This is a rather chunky sentence. Either split it up or cut it down. I suggest removing the definitions of HTML and CSS as they are already linked in the article anyway.
    • In the "Overview of standards tested" virtually all of the italicized elements don't necessitate the use of italics. See: WP:Italics.
    • The eyes of the smiley face use alpha transparency, part of the 1996 Portable Network Graphics specification. --> ... alpha transparency which is part of the ...
    • At the time Acid2 was released alpha transparency was significant because Internet Explorer 6, then the latest version of Internet Explorer, did not support alpha-transparent PNG images though other web browsers did. Very long and cumbersome sentence. How about "This was a significant issue since Internet Explorer 6, the most popular web browser at the time (ref: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), did not support alpha transparency."
      • How about "This was a significant issue because Internet Explorer 6, the most widely used web browser at the time Acid2 was released, did not support alpha transparency." —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creators of Acid2 considered object element support important because it allows for content fallback; in other words, if the specified object fails to load then alternative (generally simpler, more reliable) content can be presented instead. Break this into two sentences. Lose the parenthetical expression. Wikilink "content fallback" and lose the italics.
    • There is no such thing as a "CSS table". Reword to "CSS formatting of tables" or something similar. Also, definitions of style properties of tables and CSS generated content aren't really relevant to the article. Remove the definitions and Wikilink the terms instead.
      • During the last FAC, an editor specifically requested that short explanations of all the web standards tested be added. I tend to agree - it doesn't hurt to add a couple sentences to introduce these topics to those not familiar with them. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I can accept that rationale. In fact, I find myself often cursing authors for their lack of including basic information in an article simply because the term was linked. I just figured that had become standard practice. - Yohhans (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's all I have. Overall I'd say that it is a very well done article. As a developer, I really enjoyed the read.
  • Comment: All the images check out copyright-wise. Also, in the lead, there is a block of references that is out of order (4,3,5,6, I believe). Calor (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I think this should have passed last time. It's really close now, just some very minor things;

  • I'd prefer it if the dates weren't wlinked (see recent changes to MOS:DATE). There's a script that easily does this if you'd like it run.
  • I think Acid3 should be mentioned in the lead (Acid1 is, after all).
  • "Ian Hickson, now of Google," - what relevance does his current employer have?

Yeah, it's almost there. —Giggy 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Citations need extensive cleanup work, and reliability of sources used needs to be carefully reviewed from the last FAC, sample:

Quote from w3schools: "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users." Also, pls review the color in the chart per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Please review sourcing for the numerous unresolved concerns from the last FAC, cleanup citations, and copyedit for the next nomination (sample: data URIs: Yet another test ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Acid2/archive2&oldid=1146382135"