Wikipedia:Featured article review/Opera (web browser)


 * 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 kept by Joelr31 22:51, 7 June 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP Opera Browser, Remember the dot

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1d & 1b not met, especially for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)#Critical_reception.


 * Let's see..."1d" is "neutral", and "1b" is "comprehensive". So, are you saying that there are opposing viewpoints that you do not feel are adequately discussed? Could you provide links to reliable sources discussing these viewpoints? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "1d not met": Because it's a relatively short article perhaps? This is because it is well modularised, surely a merit rather than a fault. If you take the sum of the linked "sub-articles" it's more than comprehensive - some might say overly so. If you mean #Critical reception specifically, it alone has 3 other sub-articles.
 * "1b not met": Examples? ɹəə pıɔnı  04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article lacks balance; the entire Critical reception section as whole is an example. Not meeting 1d is a consequence of not meeting 1b. This also responds to the above "are adequately discussed?" To reply more: "provide links to reliable sources" - I googled for a second, and http://operawatch.com/ is among the reliable sources (you may wish to use it as a secondary source), though I like to remind the viewers that, in general, notifiers do not necessarily have an interest in keeping articles FA status when they does not meet the standards noticed, specific to that article.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * as an addition remark, at least the Opera article attempts to improve, while the Firefox one does not, or at least it seems that way.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already cites Opera Watch three times. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ɹəə pıɔnı  04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not know how to google??? "but editors can't invent criticisms" - haha, you are sooo funny. Oh gosh.
 * Future development is section #6 - keep the arrangement of sections in line with the Firefox article.
 * Furthermore, someone had added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opera_(web_browser)&curid=18996620&diff=276029200&oldid=275733216 - this does meet WP:LINKS
 * WhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it's also missing System requirementsWhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "do you know how to google???", yes, of course I do. What's your point? This is a ridiculous retort. Please reply with something meaningful.
 * "haha, you are sooo funny" - Sorry, maybe my sense of humour is lacking; I don't get the joke.
 * On the future developments section being unlike the Firefox article - you are just after commenting above on how poor the Firefox article is, why on earth should the Opera article try to emulate it. There's no MoS entry for browsers or software that I'm aware of: here.
 * On the Russian link(s), they are allowable as per the first exception for foreign language links in WP:LINKS as they are the ONLY official source to the relevant Russia-specific statistics related to the browser.
 * System Requirements are in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead-in. ɹəə pıɔnı  02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * System Requirements are in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead-in. ɹəə pıɔnı  02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see ). DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed 6 of them. The 7th appears to be a toolserver problem, not a problem with the link. The 8th is in a language I don't speak so I don't know how to fix/find a suitable/relevant alternative. Should non-english links be used as references on en.wiki? Although it's possible the original link pointed to an english article. ɹəə pıɔnı  04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dab checker tool reveals two dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 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) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are broken links/citations, NPOV and comprehensiveness.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Broken links have been fixed since mention (the yandex error is a toolserver bug), and dab checker shows no dab links. On other issues, the single user who raised them has refused to elaborate, instead replying with pejorative remarks . ɹəə pıɔnı  05:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a direct issue raised above, but in general sourcing seems pretty good throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm working my way through some cleanup (copyediting, MOS, ref formatting, etc.). I have concerns whether some sources meet RS. Also finding a fair amount of proseline to clean up. More later. Maralia (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hope that improvements are on the way:
 * 1) Prose concerns: The word "Opera" is mentioned at least 13 times in the lead! Prose in "Features" is not compelling.
 * 2) "Opera responded to these accusations the next day." Saying what?
 * 3) "Critical reception of Opera has been largely positive,[84][85][86] although it has been criticized for website compatibility issues,[87][88] partly because many web sites do not adhere to web standards as diligently as Opera.[89][90][91] Because of this issue, Opera 8.01 and higher have included workarounds to help certain popular but problematic web sites display properly.[92][93]" Overloading with citations, which break the prose. Combine them or merge them or make a selection among them.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Default to keep. Three months with no "remove" or "delist" votes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed I see bare URLS in references, missing publishers in a few (foreign language) references, excessive external links (see WP:EL), questionable sources (?), and undefined abbreviations (CSS). It's close, but not quite there yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been a fair few edits recently with the release of the 10 beta so it's possible this is as a result of that, not older deficiencies. I'll take a look anyway. ɹəə pıɔnı  15:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.