Wikipedia:Peer review/MacSweeper/archive1

MacSweeper

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to improve the article - at the moment it's the top result for the virus on Google. Any ideas would be most welcome!!

Thanks, Remstar (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that some work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - for example the date of discovery by F-Secure is in the lead only
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example, Clones are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Is it "MacSweeper" or "MacSweeper"? It is italicized in the lead, but nowhere else in the article
 * Image should be at top right per WP:LEAD
 * Is it malware or a virus? Or both?
 * Per WP:HEAD, headers should not repeat the name of the article, so "Problems caused by MacSweeper" could just be "Problems caused" or perhaps "Operation"
 * Article needs more references, for example first paragraph of Clones section is uncited, as is the Removal section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation with no space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Article needs a copyedit - prose is unclear in some places - What does this really mean MacSweeper could be downloaded through KiVVi software's (the company that makes the "rogue") website, as a drive-by download, or silently downloaded with another application. Is the "rogue" just the malware?
 * Avoid jargon - spell out graphical user interface (not just GUI) - see WP:JARGON
 * Why do we need the whole typo riddled message from the company in the "MacSweeper Responds" section?
 * This reads like Original Research and is very POV without a ref. The lack of detail on MacSweeper's website, however and exaggerated reports suggest that there are bad business practices at KiVVi Software. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV
 * In "See also" (not "See Also") I did not think red links were allowed.
 * Semi automated peer review linked above has some good points, some of which are repeated here I now see.
 * Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.