Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton Internet Security/archive2

Norton Internet Security

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 February 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I followed most of the instructions in the last peer review and wanted to see if this article qualified for GA status.

Thanks, TechOutsider (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) TechOutsider
 * Comments by
 * During the last peer review of this article, the following was suggested:
 * I suggest that the focus of the article should be changed so it would be useful to someone who has heard about viruses and other dangers of the Internet, wonders what it is all about, and wants to know how NIS fits into the picture. It should not be a product review; that's a job for the computer magazines, and Wikipedia cannot do product reviews because that would be WP:OR. Take a look at some of the Good Articles and Featured Articles in computing and see how that are pitched; for example Mozilla Firefox which is a much more comprehensive article but has a good organization and flow.
 * It would be useful to mention the other major players in this field, maybe with some comments about market share, or at least wikilinks to their articles if they have one. Since there are free products available, what is Symantec's secret to get people to pay for NIS?


 * I strongly support these suggestions. The article could benefit from being written for the general reader who is curious to learn more about internet security and specifically Norton's version. Perhaps some history of the various versions in a narrative style would help, describing why changes were made, or how the software evolved over time, such as the Mozilla Firefox article does. Place the Norton security system in context for the reader. You could have a table for the versions, but as the last peer reviewer said, this should not be a product review article.


 * There should be some mention of Norton's business position, and how it manages to sell a product when free alternatives are available.


 * Also, there should not be external links in the article going to Norton support or chat etc. in the body of the article as exists "Customer service". If you notice, the Mozilla Firefox article  does not get into "Customer service" but sticks to describing the overall context of Mozilla Firefox, including in relation to other products. It does not list the many forums, product links etc. for Mozilla.


 * There is still unexplained jargon, such as "64-bit support", which may not mean much to the general reader without some context and/or linking. Also, this does not need its own header, in my opinion


 * In terms of the organization of the article, the TOC needs to be reduces to more global sections I don't think each element needs its own major heading, such as "Norton Toolbar", "Pop-up and Advertisement Blocking" and "Automatic Quarantine", etc. Likewise, I am not sure a separate section for each of the "Criticisms" is helpful and "Criticisms" should be combined with "Critical Reception". It disrupts the narrative flow to have so many sections with only a short prose section in each. Bullets and lists should be avoided and a narrative style used.


 * Maybe the "Macintosh Edition" could be put under 2009 version, as it seems limited to the 2009 release. That would reduce the number of separate sections.


 * The section "FBI Cooperation" seems out of place, as the heading appears in the middle of a description of the criticisms, and as a reader, it is hard to make sense of the TOC with such headings. Think about having a TOC that will make sense to the general reader.