Talk:Google Chrome/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Issues:

• Lede: The lede is very too small. Please, summarize the full article, for every section
• Do Not Track: Is in need of expanding
• Malware blocking: This section is out-of-date. Please update it
• Usage: Chrome overtook Firefox in November 2011. As of May 2012, StatCounter measured Chrome and MSIE at roughly 32% usage share each, with Firefox at 26%. the third reference after shouldn't be spaced. That is Ref. 224
• References: Ref. 4, 149 - Isn't a good source
• References: Ref. 19 - Should be Google Blog as the publisher
• References: Ref. 43, 54 - Googlechromereleases.blogspot.com should be Google Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 59 - chrome.blogspot.com should be Chrome Blog
• References: Ref. 73 - chrome.blogspot.com.au should be Chrome Blog Australia
• References: Ref. 94 - Ref. 94 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 123 - Ref. 123 needs an accessdate. See here.
• References: Ref. 132 - Ref. 132 is a dead link. See [1].
• References: Ref. 139 - Ref. 139 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 141 - Ref. 141 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Ref. 145 - Ref. 145 is a dead link. See here.
• References: Various - Missing publishers

On hold for now. TBrandley 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Patched ref issues (diff). Any other glaring problems before I start on the prose? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No. TBrandley 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. For a start:

• The are a lot of short paragraphs, mostly three sentences long; and single paragraph sections /subsections.
• There are "direct quotations" with no citations, for example: two in History, the first paragraph in Development, several in Release channels and updates, one in Retina screen support, two in Usage,
• Ref 226 is using wikipedia as a reference.
• Some of the references are blogs, which brings into question as to whether they are WP:RS, arguably some are as they are official company blogs, but are all of them reliable?
• Its already stated above that there are references with missing published, some of them have named authors and those are missing as well, for example 17, 40, 46, etc.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

No issues have been addressed for a while now. I'll have to fail this nomination. Sorry! Please re-nominate after those above concerns have been addressed. TBrandley 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply