Wikipedia:Featured article review/Storm botnet/archive1


 * 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 Nikkimaria 18:01, 28 December 2012.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WP Computer Security, only main editor has been inactive for four years

I am nominating this featured article for review because I notice an out of date information tag.. that hasn't been removed in 2 years. I wanted to know about this botnet today, and all I got was this article with old information. My remedy would be to add the outdated information to fix this. I also suspect style problems, as the candidation was back in 2008, when FA articles were not as good. Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I posted a notice of work needed over a month ago, and no work has been done since then. The article is significantly out of date, which is the major issue, as well as the more minor issue of several dead link tags. Cbrittain, can you please make the appropriate notifications to major contributors and interested projects, as is required in the FAR nomination instructions? Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist It's definitely out-dated. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include comprehensiveness and references. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist – The article appears to be 4–5 years out of date, as the tag at the top of the page indicates. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the criteria anymore. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. No one appears to be trying. JJ98 (Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist - I've done some work on improving the lead up to date, and will continue to improve the rest of the article. The article is fairly out of date, though, and I agree that in its current state, it doesn't deserve to be a featured article. Hopefully, with some work, it can improve enough to regain featured status, but it needs some fundamental improvement until then. ( X! ·  talk )  · @740  · 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.