Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mozilla Firefox


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Gimmetrow 22:44, 2 May 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP Internet, WP Free Software, Minghong, Schapel.
 * previous FAR

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1d not met, such as in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#Critical_reaction section.
 * Due to the article not meeting 1d, that section also does not meet 1b.
 * 2a - the second paragraph is too short relative to the others in the lead.


 * Mozilla Firefox article is considerably informative and well written
 * It is very informative
 * It has several images
 * It has several (in fact 182) citations

It deserves to remain a featured article. -Pmlinediter (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Firefox article needs a feature article review (I was going to suggest one after 3.1 was released, but now is a good a time as any), and that it should remain a featured article. Could someone provide links to the guidelines that the article does not meet (1d and 2a), and provide more explanation of how the article does not meet those guidelines? Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured article criteria; 1d is that it is neutral, 2a is that it has a well-written lead section that concisely and accurately summarizes that article. -- Pres N  06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The second point, 1b, should also be taken into account, especially for the section mentioned in the first point. Under the standards noticed, it would be removed in its current state. Furthermore, it's obviously pointless to waste words with a character like Pmlinediter, based on the reasoning made in that reply.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what you think are the problems with the article and how you would suggest fixing them? I do not agree that the Critical reaction section should be removed according to the featured article review guidelines. Could you explain your reasoning in detail? -- Schapel (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the three dead links should be changed to good ones (see ). DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"I do not agree that the Critical reaction section should be removed according to the featured article review guidelines." - Who said it should be removed?

I'm just going to list a few problems:
 * 2a is an issue, and that still isn't taken care of.
 * "They believed the commercial.." is referenced to citation #12. citation #12 doesn't even mention Blake Ross for example, which is what the "They" is referring to.
 * suggestion: get a new source, or mutiple sources.


 * "as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project" - mozilla project should have an internal link
 * why doesn't it? the reader would not know was this thing call the "mozilla project"


 * "To combat what they saw.." - more towards neutral
 * "Mozilla trunk (mozilla-central)" - why is it written like the reader knows what "mozilla-central" is?
 * suggestion: clarify it, or remove if unimportant


 * "Mozilla developer Mike Shaver has indicated.." - other citations don't typically attribute the name, so why is it attributed this time? does the name have an article?
 * suggestion: remove


 * "integrated search system that uses the user's desired search engine." - so you're saying that you can use any search engine, just because you desire it!?! not neutral.
 * "The developers of Firefox aimed to produce a browser that "just surfs the web"[59] and delivers the "best possible browsing experience to the widest possible set of people."" - remove; one citation is false, while the other is to Wikipedia.... that counts as 1c
 * missing System requirements

These are a few types of problems. The entire article needs to be improved, especially the Critical reaction section.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with what you enumerated above (I also mentioned Google in the lead, in the place about search engines), however all mentioned examples are outside of "Critical reaction" section... BartłomiejB (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "The developers of Firefox aimed to produce a browser that "just surfs the web"[59] and delivers the "best possible browsing experience to the widest possible set of people."" - remove; one citation is false, while the other is to Wikipedia.... that counts as 1c -- huh? [59] is http://www.blakeross.com/index.php?p=9 (dead link to me now) and [60] is http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/charter.html (so it is not Wikipedia, but official site of the producer of the browser). The problem with these sentences is that this is a typical marketing babble, so I'm not sure there is a place for them in (allegedly) neutral encyclopedic article... BartłomiejB (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By false, I meant dead. Sorry about that. I just prefer false...WhatisFeelings? (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed these sentences altogether. BartłomiejB (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re missing System requirements -- I fully agree that it is very big omission (actually, I wonder how this article received "Featured article" status with such ommision...). Official system requirements BartłomiejB (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed this sentence because it was worbly: Firefox also implements[66] an open source[67] protocol[68] from Google called "safebrowsing" (used to exchange data related with "phishing and malware protection"), which is not an open standard.

Why are there citations right after certain words and not at the end of the sentence? The Wurdalak (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) *:::::Please continue to help. Have you discovered anything else? The Wurdalak (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed a sentence around to be easier to read but it could be inaccurate now. I haven't followed the citations to see what is actually written. The Wurdalak (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations are bad. One guy says on April 6 2009: At the moment, Wikipedia states that the use of the safebrowse protocol is incompatible with the Mozilla Manifesto b/c safebrowse is not open source (it says at the beginning "This specification is not yet for general use. Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google."). On the other hand, the Google code page for safebrowse states that safebrowse is available under a new BSD license. Which is correct?
 * That "guy" was me. See Talk:Mozilla Firefox.  It is part of an attempt to get accurate information.  -- Thin  boy  00  @075, i.e. 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's here: http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec

A good citation is needed. The Wurdalak (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it is said too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_Mozilla_Firefox

An expert opinion is needed, either in the media or a good reading of technical papers. Help! The Wurdalak (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update - i'm not exactly sure but i'm assuming that if the FAR noticer is inactive, then the FAR in question is removed/canceled. in any event, there was very low activity from those i notified.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * FA criteria concerns include unreliable/unformatted/incomplete citations and neutrality.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist - I see some changes but the FA criteria concerns mentioned are still valid. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

*Hi. Can I help out with this one? I think it would be great on the main page. The Wurdulak (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Firefox article has already been on the main page... on November 28, 2004. The Wurdulak (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Being or not already in the main page is one issue. The fact that the article definitely has many visitors is another issue. Therefore, I think it would be great if you could help with the article!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Revisiting I see some sourcing improvement but also two problem/issues tags. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove; there is a factual accuracy tag, external jumps throughout the text (see WP:EL, external sites belong in external links), and numerous raw and unformattted citations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.