Talk:GNOME Web/GA1

GA Review
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)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
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:
 * 1(a)5: it is a citation. Aren't we supposed to preserve them in their exact form? ✅
 * 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 ✅.
 * 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):
 * 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 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: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1(a)1, 1(b)3:, waiting for comments.
 * 1(b)2:.
 * 1(a)3, 1(b)1: by Ahunt.
 * 2(a)1: references are given at the end of paragraph; waiting for comments.
 * 3(a)1:, waiting for comments.
 * 4: I don't see why it still fails...

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? &mdash; 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: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 &mdash;.
 * 2(a)4.
 * 2(a)5.
 * 2(a)6 It is already referenced in paragraph right above the table. The ref contents the commented list.

PASS &mdash; 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)