Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internet Explorer/archive1

Internet Explorer
A reasonably neutral, objective article about Internet Explorer. Well written and very informative! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - not quite comprehensive yet. One point that immediately springs to mind is that there's nothing on its worldwide usage - what languages is it available in? are there differences depending which country you are in? There's not much on the history of IE either - there are 6 versions to describe, only the most recent developments are described. How did it come about that IE was launched in 1995? How does it compare to its competitors - is it more flexible/rigid/user-friendly? jguk 11:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fixed up the history section with info on each of the versions. The comparison to other competitors, I'm afraid, is fraught with danger as it could be construed as being POV. I don't want to go there, and I don't think its strictly necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Usage figures are a problem. I don't think there is one universally accepted source of usage figures.  And there is no easy way to determine usage figures anyway.  User agent strings are easily spoofed, download figures mean nothing because you have no way of knowing whether the download is actually installed far less used... AlistairMcMillan 05:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ta bu shi day du rightly notes that an extra section for comparison to competitors would invite POV and instability. Besides, flexibility and user-friendliness are subjective notions. The article already outlines features specific to IE, features it shares with others and features it misses: this is sufficient. Phils 15:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Extremely negative. Pages of speculation about causes of security problems, arbitrary requirements such as a list of "missing features". My TV doesn't wash my dishes - is that a missing feature? This article expresses the opinion that anything less than 100% adherence to web standards is negative, and drives this point home again and again in the "Web standards" section, which is all criticism. Rhobite 02:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Rhobite. Neutralitytalk 02:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, which bits are speculation? If I could find out then I'll attempt to resolve these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * One issue is the tone of the "web standards" section, which uses words such as "fails", "bug", etc. framing the issue to reflect negatively on IE. The security section has a paragraph of speculation on the practice and consequences of logging in as root - I think that whole para needs work (and personally I'm not convinced that most Linux desktop users don't also run as root, or at least use the same password for their root and user accounts). More importantly, root access doesn't mean much in practice - you don't need root access to spread a trojan, for example. It's a red herring. The next paragraph's Apache/IIS ubiquity comparison is also speculation, doesn't belong in an article about IE. COM section: "explosion" = pov language. "Microsoft has recognized the problem with ActiveX" sentence is an exaggeration based on a single old quote. Huge quotes by Ed Felten and the O'Reilly book need to go. For that matter the CERT quote doesn't belong in the article either. I could add three paragraph-long quotes of praise to the article copied verbatim from some MS publication, but let's not go there. The whole COM/ActiveX section is negative - not one mention of how it is actually used in practice. Removing IE paragraph: I know we went through the whole thing with that guy who advocates removing IE.. but 6 paragraphs is a whole lot of article, considering that almost nobody removes IE in practice. HTH. Rhobite 01:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for detailing your objections, Rhobite. As always, these are good to know and perhaps this article does need some more work. I just noticed a disputed tag in the article, so I'm thinking that I need to move this to peer review. I would like to keep this on FAC for the full time period, however, to gather more feedback. I have to do another review of the article and see what I can do. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I agree strongly with Rhobite's comments above. There are very negative connotations throughout this article and it needs much attention to make it NPOV. -- 82.3.32.75 21:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough in my opinion Squash 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object This article is not stable, with numerous changes every week, and frequent accusations of anti-IE bias (often justified, even from my somewhat anti-IE POV). Much of the prose could do with some pounding for readability.  I also agree or partially agree with some of Rhobite's comments above, namely: "missing features", "log in as root" (that's a problem, but a Windows/Windows Apps/Windows Usage problem, not directly an IE problem) "removing IE" (IMO, belongs in the antitrust article, or maybe an article of its own; in any case, six paras here is way too much) "web standards" (IE is the worst of the main browsers, with some really annoying limitations, but it's still pretty good, and a lot better than its contemporaries and immediate predecessors) "COM/ActiveX" (dangerous when misused/abused, but so's a chainsaw).  In general, the whole article devotes lots of verbiage to a few controversial points, while other worthy subjects get minimal space.  For example: IE6 introduced some major improvements to standards support; COM/ActiveX do provide benefits (which may or may not outweigh the problems, but are still worth a mention).  I could add more, but that'll do for now. Blufive 20:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * "as of 2004, although nineteen states have agreed to the settlement"
 * How about as of 2005?
 * "Content Advisor for screening out objectionable content by using industry-standard ratings"
 * What industry standard rating systems?
 * Support for vertical text, but in a syntax different from W3C CSS3 candidate recommendation.
 * A link to it perhaps?
 * Missing features:
 * "Full support for the W3C's CSS2 standard."
 * What browser has that? Mozilla at least does not.
 * "Full support for PNG images. IE renders PNG images without alpha channel transparency."
 * As I understand alpha transparency is an optional part of the standard, and therefor you cannot claim that IE does not have 100% support (unless some other part am missing, or I'm wrong) later in the article its stated that they're an optional part of the specification, remove this please.
 * Um... well, it doesn't conform to the full standard. The full standard would also include the optional bits... Ta bu shi da yu 00:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you support a standard minus its optional bits you have full support by definition, they're called optional for a reason, I maintain that IE has 100% PNG support. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:02, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * "However, Internet Explorer does not conform to several web standards defined by the W3C, and many web developers therefore consider the browser to be hindering further standard-based improvement of web technologies."
 * What does it 100% confirm to?
 * —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:17, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Object as well. I agree with most of Rhobite's comments. The article has an inherent point of view that is biased against IE. --JuntungWu 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object because of the reader-unfriendly style of writing. Some examples:
 * Internet Explorer, abbreviated IE or MSIE, is a web browser made by Microsoft and currently available as part of Microsoft Windows - the introductory sentence (indeed the whole paragraph) does not even mention that Windows is a operating system for PCs.
 * The "history" section is to some extent not more than a list of versions and features written in a "...and then ... and then" style. There is not much context to explain what all these buzzwords mean and why this or that technology is relevant. I would expect a history section to tell me things like: Microsoft introduced technology X in 19XX, which caused users to complain about security issues related to Y but gained IE further market share because product Z by company A did not implement a similar feature before 19YY
 * Simply installing and using another browser does not prevent third party programs and core operating system components from using IE libraries - too technical, no link or explanation of what "library" means in this context or what "core operating system components" are. We should be writing for a general readership, so please don't assume technical knowledge on the readers' part.
 * There was an issue that occurred in Internet Explorer 4 where an error message would appear stating that "Explorer caused an invalid page fault in module MSHTML.DLL at 0137:703e34c" when Windows 95 or Windows NT started with the Active Desktop enabled or when Internet Explorer was started. - does this level of technical detail contribute to a reader's grasp of what IE is? Methinks not.
 * Componentized implementation on Windows allows a high level of integration with other applications... - reads rather like bloated marketing-speak. Couldn't we have that clear and concise, please? (BTW, is "componentized" a word of the English language? If it is, it's one of the ugliest I have seen)
 * Internet Explorer was designed with functionality in mind... - more hot air from the marketing department. Kosebamse 20:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object The article has been thoroughly raped by proponents of Firefox and other competitors. An example I recently corrected -- like all sections, the JavaScript paragraph had been twisted to make out that MS was trying to 'embrace extend and extinguish' the standard, that MS has unfairly extended the standard, that Microsoft had gone against the W3C spec. The unforgiveable flaw in all this anti-MS ranting was that the author had absolutely no clue about the JavaScript methods in question, and had criticised Internet Explorer for supporting addEventListener, when this is in fact a W3C DOM standard! It beggars belief that such unbalanced and incorrect rubbish is allowed to fester on this page. If only the MS developers would start contributing here and set the record straight, as they have been doing on the IEBlog. --Beachy 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the standard Beachy is referring to came out in 2000, when Microsoft introduced the JavaScript method in 1998, either Microsoft have access to a time machine (someone needs to notify the authorities) or they weren't following any standard when they introduced this addition to their browser. AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. With some more cleanups, this article would be great. But currently that is more enough content about the "good" thing of the browser (which personally I can't find any). --minghong 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can't find anything good to say then maybe you should leave editing this article to those who are capable of portraying a balanced view of Internet Explorer? You've certainly contributed more than your fair share of anti-MS negativity to the proceedings. I don't hold anything against you personally and you seem like a very intelligent chap. However, the pro-Firefox agenda you describe in your user page is making your edits here extremely one-sided. --Beachy 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)