Talk:Safari (web browser)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: PhotographyEdits (talk · contribs) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! Also tagging because they seem involved too. I might add more comments in the following days, but there is quite a lot of work to be done.

Lead
✅, exactly two more paragraphs. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be a bit longer, maybe two paragraphs.

History and development
✅ Wingwatchers (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is quite some uncited information that should be fixed
 * Citations to apple.com/safari need to be changed to archive.org
 * The bullet points are better suited as prose style
 * Could make use of some screenshots of older versions

Security
✅, except for part 2, because no source that is both secondary and reliable exist. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Contains quite a long qoute, should be written in WP:SS and preferable with an non-primary source
 * It contains an interpretation of the privacy policy of Apple, which is a primary source. This should be done using a secondary source

System requirements
✅ I expanded it and listed it for every version, no need to integrate it into the history and development paragraph. Wingwatchers (talk)
 * This only talks about recent versions. Might be better to integrated this paragraph into the history and development paragraph and list it for every version.

Criticism
✅ Wingwatchers (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some info is uncited

Safari Developer Program
✅ Wingwatchers (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is not referenced

Scope
✅ There are tons of reliable website that talks about IE's architecturae, while there is a little to none reliable sites about Safari's architecture besides Apple's official developer website. But I finish the market share section. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be some information added, like an architectural overview as seen in Internet_Explorer and information about the market share.PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything is ✅.Wingwatchers (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , is been quite long. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the late reply! My main issue currently is the compliance with WP:RS. Some sources that do not currently comply include:

These include at least If the information cannot be sourced without these sources, than that information should be removed from the article. I checked this until the technology preview paragraph, I hope you can identify the remaining (if any) yourself. If these sources are cited in WP:RS in the relevant field (software/Apple stuff) per WP:SPS, then it's fine, so please check that before removing them. Also, a *lot* is based on content from apple.com. Please attempt to replace some with 3rd party sources I think that the section about the license violates WP:PRIMARY per the second and fourth point, so then it should be removed. Thanks for your work so far, you've done an impressive job already! PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * www.cloudwards.net
 * http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/
 * https://www.webperformance.com
 * erratasec.blogspot.com
 * http://larholm.com
 * the.taoofmac.com
 * www.favbrowser.com
 * http://theappleblog.com
 * http://blog.arc90.com
 * https://windowsreport.com
 * https://code.tutsplus.com
 * https://clearcode.cc
 * https://pxlnv.com
 * https://www.ipadacademy.com
 * , ✅ I have replaced every single untrusted source with reliable 3rd party sites. I have also cleaned up the license section and replace many primary sources from Apple Inc. with secondary sources. Thank you for reviewing! Wingwatchers (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work, I'll do a final check this weekend. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Weekends had passed. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it's taking so long. I'll try to finish it as soon as possible. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , why does it fail GA? Wingwatchers (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't failed the GA nomination! I was also making some small improvements, I'm still trying to finish it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be a computer bug, Wingwatchers (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Status query
PhotographyEdits, Wingwatchers, where does this review stand? It has been open for over three months, the most recent comment here is a week short of two months old, and the last edit to the article by either of you is over six weeks in the past. Can this be concluded soon, preferably by the end of the month? Thank you. (Note: the failure message near the end of June was caused by the article and review page move/name change from "Safari (web browser)" to "Safari (software)"; the bot lost track of the nomination and thought it was because the nomination had been failed, rather than it having been moved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * no response in 3 weeks, I'd move to close review and have the nominator renom later. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  23:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @A. C. Santacruz@BlueMoonset, will. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for delay, give me a couple of weeks and it will be confidently off to GA. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wingwatchers, it's been over three weeks, and the only edit made since, the day after your prior post, introduced a number of prose issues in the lead. My feeling is that the article is far from ready, and the prose fails to meet the "clear and concise" standard in many places, not simply the lead. If a significant improvement cannot be made by 26 October, the nomination will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @BlueMoonset, what about now? Wingwatchers (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think now might be the right time for a close. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Theleekycauldron and @BlueMoonset: close with status promotion? Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would require your reviewer to pass the nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not the reviewer. Mark83 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @PhotographyEdits: any further comments? Can you approved it now? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Wingwatchers Sorry for the long delay! Well done, congratulations. PhotographyEdits (talk) PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

IE image
The article is about Safari, so why is the first image in the main body the Internet Explorer logo? It's purely decorative and distracting. Mark83 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As Safari's predecessor, it is still relevant to the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Screenshots
Do we need so many screenshots? There are little to no discernible differences between some versions, so the images don't really advance the reader's knowledge or understanding? Interestingly the biggest differences are simply down to user preferences at the time of the screenshot, e.g. sidebar/ bookmarks bar on or off. That isn't unique to the version of Safari. Mark83 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mark83: all the screenshots from the Screenshot Section. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)