Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton Internet Security/archive3

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 March 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 March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to see how far this article progressed. Note to the peer reviewer ... Refresh the page often; I will be continuing to touch up the page. When reading the last two peer reviews and the GA nomination, I found the reviewer was referencing to an earlier version of the article superseded by several edits. Another note: I used a forum as the source for the latest version information. I inquired at WP:RSN and users agreed it was OK; the poster was an expert; he was the forum administrator, and was a Symantec employee.

Thanks, a ton TechOutsider (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC) TechOutsider

Edit: One more thing, I want this article to be at least GA class, later I will pursuit FAC. TechOutsider (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Comments from Ched
First I think you've done wonders with it, but now to the critical aspects of the article.
 * 1) The picture in the lead is way to big (I may resize here shortly).  The "thumb" does not affect the actual size of the graphic, so users can still click on it and see the full size version.
 * 2) I think the lead should get to the point of content sooner: ex: (NIS is a suite of tools that contain an Anti-virus program, an e-mail filter, a firewall, and a phishing protection programs.)  Then you can go on to the removal, subscription, box copy stuff.
 * 3) referencing is very good... perhaps just a bit too much in some places.  If one WP:RS reference sufficiently supports an uncontentious claim, 2 and 3 aren't needed really.

I'll look at it in a little more detail in a bit, but those are the basics I see at the moment. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 23:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RSN posting


 * Ok, I'm going to rearrange the lead; so the features come first, then market share. TechOutsider (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * Ched, I see you corrected all the issues brought up by the automated review. Thanks! TechOutsider (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * NP .. anyway, finally getting back to this - sorry it took so long. I see you did indeed edit the lead.  I probably would have put the sentence about what programs come with the package first - but honestly, I think that is just a matter of taste, rather than one being right and one being wrong - so I didn't edit.  On to the other things I might change:

All in all I think you've done a fantastic job here TO, I remember what the article looked like before you started working on it - and all I can say is WOW! .. great job. What you may want to do, is drop a note on the editor's talk page who did the last GA review, and ask him if he's willing to take a look at it again before you actually submit it to GAR. He may have a suggestion or two that could help. Well, again - good work, and that's about all I see at the moment. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of the "Windows edition" section: In August of 1990 Symantec acquired Peter Norton Computing from Peter Norton.[5] Norton and his company developed various utilities, or applications for DOS.  I'm pretty sure they also had windows apps, so you may want to change to ... or applications for DOS and early versions of Windows.
 * I added some wiki-links to clarify some of the technical terms, and tightened up some of the prose a little.
 * I see you have some items cited with 2 and 3 references; probably you could remove a couple of those - but I'd wait until the article is actually in review before I did that. It's real easy and quick to just remove a ref, a little more tedious to go put it back in.
 * Personally I might switch the reference columns to 2-column rather than 3 for readability - but again, probably more a personal choice than a right or wrong thing.
 * Thanks for your supporting words. TechOutsider (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider
 * In August of 1990 Symantec acquired Peter Norton Computing from Peter Norton.[5] Norton and his company developed various utilities, or applications for DOS. '' I'm pretty sure they also had windows apps, so you may want to change to ... or applications for DOS and early versions of Windows.

Interestingly, according to Peter Norton Computing, they developed NAV for Mac...TechOutsider (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider


 * Just out of curiosity I looked around - yep, you're right. The first version of Norton Utilities for Windows came out in 1995 (with the release of Win95), and by then Peter has already sold to Symantec. I'd have to dig out my old box (if I even still have it), but I think the Norton name was still more prominent (probably for marketing reasons) in display. I also see that Norton Utilities is planning a revival of sorts.  If you go from NIS to working on Norton Utilities, there's a good (and recent) article here — Ched ~  (yes?)/© 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)