Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton 360/archive1

Norton 360

 * 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 April 2009.
 * 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to bring this article to GA-class. The main issue is probably the context the article was written in; I think it was written for someone familiar with Norton products and Symantec.

Thanks, TechOutsider&#39; (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a look to give some feedback.


 * It might be useful to pull out some of the technical details from the Version sections to make a "Product specifications" section since right now it looks too heavily weighted towards version data.


 * Norton_Internet_Security is already a GA, adding a similar #Reception section is probably needed to make this article broad enough to be a GA.


 * It could probably use a round of copyediting, some of the shortest paragraphs should be merged to make a more even flow.

Hope that helps.  MBisanz  talk 00:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh...excellent pointers :). Have a question about the specifications though. Should there be a section about each version? Because the features change each year TechOutsider (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, I agree with the points made above. Here are some more 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; 03:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the year the software was introduced is not in lead, nor is Project Genesis mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Refs that are the same can be combined, for example current refs 18 and 19 could be combined. Ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this.
 * Avoid the use of words like "now", also see if similar sentences can be combined, so Norton 360 version 3.0 now shares the same base as Norton Internet Security 2009. As a result, Norton 360 shares the performance improvements Symantec made to Norton Internet Security 2009.[16] could be As of 2009, Norton 360 version 3.0 shares the same base as Norton Internet Security 2009, as well as the performance improvements Symantec made to the base.[16]
 * I do not really understand this sentence PC Magazine highlighted version 3.0's weak spam filter, letting half of spam e-mail in the inbox misidentifying valid e-mail.
 * Still needs a copyedit, for example Similar to version 1.0, it include[d] the same features found in Norton Internet Security 2008.